EXCHANGE 


XTbe  xantvetslt^  ot  Cbtcago 


THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE 
TO  THE  HEBREWS 

INCLUDING  ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  DEVELOPING 
CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE 
CHURCH 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF  ARTS 

AND  LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(the  graduate  divinity  school:    department  of  new  testament 
literature  and  interpretation) 


BY 

HARRIS  LACHLAN  MacNEILL 


Reprinted  from 

Historical  and  Linguistic  Studies 

Second  Series,  Vol.  II,  Part  4 

(Copyrighted  1914,  by  the  University  of  Chicago) 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/christologyofepiOOniacnrich 


Ube  Xllntverstti?  ot  Cbicaao 


THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE 
TO  THE  HEBREWS 

INCLUDING  ITS  RELATION  TO  THE  DEVELOPING 

CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE 

CHURCH 


A  DISSERTATION 

SXJBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  DIVINITY 

SCHOOL  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  new  testament  literature  and  interpretation) 


BY 

HARRIS  LACHLAN  MacNEILL 


Rq)rinted  from 

Historical  and  Linguistic  Studies 

Second  Series,  Vol.  II,  Part  4 

{Copyrighted  1914,  by  the  University  of  Chicago^ 


Cf 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois.  U.S.A. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

FAGB 

Introductory 9 

I.  Analysis  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
II.  Introduction  to  the  Epistle 
III.  General  Doctrinal  Views  and  Framework 

I.    Human   Elements   in   the    Christ-Conception   of   the 

Epistle 20 

I.  The  Writer's  Knowledge  of  the  Historical  Jesus 
II.  Human  Elements  in  Harmony  with  This  Historical  Knowledge 
III.  General  Statement 

II.    Transcendent  Elements  in  the  Christ-Conception  of 

Hebrews 29 

I.  The  Three  Periods  in  Jesus'  Career 
II.  Christ  as  Superior  to  the  Angels  and  Moses 
III.  Christ  Superior  as  High  Priest  after  the  Order  of  Melchizedek 

1.  Christ  the  Mediator  of  a  Better  Covenant 

2.  Sinlessness  of  Jesus 

3.  Jesus  as  Author  of  Eternal  Salvation 
IV.  Christ  as  Eternal 

1.  Cosmic  Significance  of  Christ 

2.  Relation  of  Christ  to  Men 

3.  Relation  of  Christ  to  God 
V.  Various  Titles  of  Christ 

1.  The  Christ  (6  xp'-^'^^s) 

2.  The  Apostle  (6  dTroo-roAos) 

3.  The  Firstborn  (6  TrpajToroKo?) 

4.  The  Lord  (6  Kvptos) 

5.  The  Son  (6  vlos) 

III.  Resume:    The  Total  Christ  Personality       ....    97 

IV.  Sources  and  Relations  of  the  Thought  of  the  Epistle  105 

I.  Sources  and  Relations  of  the  General  Doctrine 

1.  Classic  Judaism 

2.  Later  Judaism  and  Primitive  Christianity 

3.  Alexandrianism 

4.  Oriental  Mystery-Religions 

5.  Probable  Original  Elements 

5 


6  ;  ^  ^ISTOdlCAL  AND  5uINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

PAGE 

II.  Sources  and  Relations  of  the  Christological  Doctrine,  Including 
an  Outline  of  New  Testament  Christology 

1.  Consideration  of  Ps.  2:7  as  Used  in  Heb.  i :  5  and  5: 5 

2.  Jesus'  Self -Estimate 

3.  Primitive  Christian  Christology 

4.  The  Christology  of  Paul 

5.  Divergent  Movements  after  Paul 

Concluding  Remarks 143 


332 


The  author  makes  glad  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness  to  all  his 
instructors  in  the  Department  of  New  Testament  Literature  and  Inter- 
pretation, but  especially  to  Associate  Professor  Clyde  Weber  Votaw, 
who  not  only  suggested  the  subject,  but  who  has  followed  the  work 
upon  it  with  helpful  suggestion  and  kindly  criticism. 


333] 


INTRODUCTORY 

I.      ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

Introduction 1:1-4 

1.  God's  revelation  in  the  prophets  in  the  past        .       .    .  1:1 

2.  God's  revelation  in  a  Son;  the  Son's  work  and  dignity.  i  :2,  3 

3.  Transition  to  the  main  theme,  viz.,  the  superiority  of 

Christ  and  of  God's  revelation  in  him 1:4 

I.  Superiority  of  the  Son  to  the  angels 1:5 — 2:18 

1.  Superior  in  being  a  Son  as  shown  from  Old  Testament 
quotations 1:5-14 

2.  Parenetic  section.    The  peril  of  neglecting  this  salvation  2 : 1-4 

3.  Supremacy  in  the  world  to  come 2:5-18 

a)  Promised  to  man  not  to  angels 2 : 5-8a 

b)  Realized  in  Jesus,  the  representative,  leader,  and 

brother  of  men 2 :  8&-13 

c)  who  for  their  salvation  is  made  like  men        .     .  2: 14-18 
II.  Superiority  of  the  Son  to  Moses  and  Joshua 3:1 — ^4:13 

1.  Jesus  faithful,  as  was  Moses,  over  God's  house  .     .     .  3:ii  2 

2.  Jesus' glory  greater  than  that  of  Moses 3:3-6 

a)  Moses  part  of  the  house,  Jesus  the  builder     .     .     .  3^3,4 

b)  Moses  a  servant,  Jesus  a  Son .  3 : 5,  6 

3.  Parenetic  section 3:7 — ^4:13 

a)  Danger  of  unbelief  and  apostasy 3-*7-i9 

b)  Exhortation  to  enter  into  God's  rest  today    .     .     .  4:1-13 

4.  Transition  to  the  presentation  of  Jesus  as  High  Priest    .  4:14-16 
III.  Superiority  of  Jesus  as  High  Priest 5:1 — 10:18 

I.  The  person  and  dignity  of  Jesus  as  High  Priest        .     .  5 :  i — 7 :  28 

a)  God-appointed  and  sympathetic  from  experience      .  5 :  i-io 

b)  Parenetic  digression.     A  reproof  for  backwardness 
and  an  exhortation  to  renewed  earnestness  based  on 

the  promise  and  oath  of  God 5:11 — 6:20 

c)  Melchizedek  as  type  of  Jesus 7 : 1-28 

i)  Melchizedek  and  Abraham 7:1-3 

2)  Melchizedek  superior  to  Abraham  and  Levi   .     .  7:4-10 

3)  The  imperfect  Levitical  priesthood  and  law  dis- 
placed by  the  perfect  priesthood  of  Jesus  and  the 

better  hope 7:11-25 

4)  Jesus  as  Son  a  perfect  priest  appointed  forever  by 

oath  of  God 7:26-28 

335]  9 


10  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

2.  The  work  of  Jesus  as  High  Priest        8:i — io:i8 

a)  Jesus  a  minister  of  the  real  tabernacle  in  heaven      .  8:1,2 
h)  His  offerings  and  service  more  excellent,  being  based 

on  the  better  covenant  prophesied  by  Jeremiah     .  8:3-13 

c)  Contrast  of  tabernacles  and  covenants      ....  9 : 1-28 
i)  The  earthly  tabernacle 9 :  i-io 

2)  Christ's  service  in  the  heavenly  tabernacle     .     .  9:11-14 

3)  The  better  covenant  and  the  better  sacrifice  .      .  9: 15-28 

d)  Effectiveness   and  finality   of   Christ's  sacrifice  in 

cleansing  the  conscience  and  bringing  men  to  God  10:1-18 

IV.  Exhortation  and  warning 10:19 — 12:29 

1.  Exhortation  to   assurance,   steadfastness,  and  mutual 
helpfulness 10:19-25 

2.  Wilful  sin  will  bring  sorer  punishment 10:26-31 

3.  Reminder  of  past  distress  and  struggle  and  exhortation  to 

patient  continuance        10:32-39 

4.  Exhortation  to  faith 11  :i — 12:17 

a)  Historical  review  of  the  results  of  faith     ....  11:1-40 
h)  Exhortation  to  similar  faith  and  patience  under  the 

chastening  of  God 12:1-13 

c)  Exhortation  to  mutual  watchfulness  and  helpfulness        12:14-17 

5.  Solemn  warning  based  on  a  final  contrast  of  Old  and  New        1 2 :  18-29 

V.  Sundry  practical  exhortations 13 : 1-19 

VT.  Benediction 13:20,  21 

Vn.  Conclusion 13:22-25 

II.      INTRODUCTION  TO   THE  EPISTLE 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  from  many  points  of  view,  is  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  and  virile  pieces  of  writing  in  the  New  Testament.  From 
the  literary  point  of  view  it  stands  supreme  in  the  New  Testament  as 
the  work  of  a  conscious  literary  artist.  This  holds  true  even  if  we  are 
not  ready  to  go  as  far  as  von  Soden^  in  attributing  to  the  writer  conscious 
and  precise  conformity  to  the  rhetorical  laws  of  Greek  literary  construc- 
tion. In  any  case  it  is  clear  that  the  writer  is  perfectly  at  home  in  his 
use  of  the  Greek  language.  It  is  vain  to  attempt  to  show  that  this 
epistle  is  a  translation  from  Hebrew  or  Aramaic.  If  the  author  was 
himself  a  Jew,  as  seems  altogether  likely,  he  nevertheless  had  a  thorough 
training  in  the  use  of  Greek,  for  he  has  given  us  the  best  exhibition  of 
good  Greek  in  the  New  Testament. 

'  Handcommentar  zum  Neuen  Testament,  "Einleitung  zu  Hebraer,"  V,  S.  10. 

336 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  11 

The  effort  to  establish  the  identity  of  the  author  is  probably  a 
hopeless  one.  Fortunately  the  epistle  itself  enables  us  to  gain  a  suffi- 
ciently clear  and  full  picture  of  his  personality  and  attitude.  The  case 
is  somewhat  the  same  with  the  readers.  A  full  discussion  of  questions  of 
introduction  is  not  required  here.  It  is  only  necessary  to  give  a  general 
statement  with  emphasis  upon  matters  which  have  a  bearing  upon 
the  Christology. 

The  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  epistle  is  fortunately  fixed  about  95 
A.D.  by  its  evident  use  in  Clement  Ad  Cor.  i,  which  was  written  about 
96  A.D.  Unfortimately  the  terminus  a  quo  is  not  so  certain,  though 
according  to  the  view  here  held  there  are  various  converging  lines  of 
evidence  which  point  to  85  to  90  a.d.  It  must,  however,  be  admitted 
that  so  far  as  specific  statements  go,  the  earlier  date  65  to  70  a.d.  is  not 
impossible.  The  letter  itself  shows  us  that  the  writer  and  his  readers 
belong  to  the  second  generation  of  Christians  (2 13,  4).  Their  conversion 
lies  considerably  in  the  past  (5:12).  They  have  passed  through  one 
severe  persecution,  apparently  shortly  after  their  conversion  (10:32), 
and,  whether  literally  interpreted  or  not,  "resisted  unto  blood"  (12:4) 
implies  that  they  are  in  the  throes  of  another  persecution  in  the  face  of 
which  they  are  not  manifesting  the  enthusiastic,  courageous  spirit  which 
they  manifested  in  the  former  persecution  (12:12). 

There  is  too  great  a  tendency,  in  fixing  dates  by  persecutions,  to 
consider  only  the  definite  and  widespread  persecutions  of  the  Roman 
government,  viz.,  those  of  Claudius,  Nero,  Domitian,  and  Trajan. 
There  may  have  been  other  persecutions,  not  merely  local  but  compara- 
tively widespread,  in  addition  to  the  historical  persecutions  of  the  Roman 
government  known  to  us.  But  in  the  case  of  the  readers  of  this  epistle, 
it  seems  very  natural  to  consider  the  first  persecution  mentioned,  to  be 
the  one  under  Nero  (64  a.d.).  This  would  fit  nicely  the  date  of  their 
conversion  (2:3;  10:32),  while  the  persecution  under  Domitian  (81-96 
A.D.)  would  be  the  one  in  which  the  readers  at  present  find  themselves. 
Inasmuch  as  this  persecution  has  not  yet  reached  its  height  (12:4),  one 
is  inclined  to  place  it  in  the  earlier  part  of  Domitian's  reign.  It  is 
impossible  to  consider  the  second  persecution  as  that  under  Trajan 
(98-117  A.D.),  for  that  would  bring  us  beyond  our  terminus  ad  quem. 
These  facts  would  lead  us  to  place  the  epistle  about  85  a.d.,  perhaps 
rather  shortly  after  that  date. 

Many  still  feel  it  an  insuperable  objection  to  any  date  after  70  a.d. 
that  the  writer  should  know  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  with  the 
cessation  of  all  the  sacrificial  service  of  the  temple  and  yet  fail  to  clinch 

337 


12  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

his  argument  by  reference  to  this  great  fact.  And  indeed  such  a  passage 
as  8:4,  which  surely  seems  to  imply  that  there  are  still  those  on  earth 
who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law,  offers  considerable  difficulty.  We 
know  that  such  sacrificial  service  ceased  after  70  a.d.  That  the  old 
covenant  and  its  institutions  should  be  spoken  of  as  "nigh  unto  dis- 
appearing" (8:13)  presents  the  same  difficulty.  These  and  other 
similar  references  lead  many  to  adopt  the  view  that  the  epistle  was 
written  to  warn  the  readers  against  lapsing  back  into  Judaism  and  to 
place  the  epistle  before  70  a.d.  But  the  whole  difficulty  diminishes, 
even  vanishes,  if  we  remind  ourselves  repeatedly  that  the  author's  whole 
thought  revolves,  not  around  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  but  around  the 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness.  It  may  indeed  be  that  the  reason  for  this 
was  just  the  fact  that  the  temple  service  was  gone,  but  it  is  much  more 
likely  that  it  was  because  the  author  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.  Philo  went  to  Jerusalem  only  once,  so  far  as  we  know.* 
It  may  be  that  our  author  never  saw  the  temple.  At  any  rate  it  is  clear 
that  the  picture  which  fills  his  mind  is  not  that  of  the  temple  but  that 
of  the  tabernacle  of  Old  Testament  Scripture.  Moreover  the  importance 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  dating  documents  of 
the  period  has  been  exaggerated.  It  is  an  event  that  is  not  often  referred 
to  in  contemporary  literature.  The  Greeks  once  fined  a  playwright  for 
making  reference  in  his  play  to  the  destruction  of  the  splendid  city  of 
Miletus  494  B.C.  The  Jews  may  have  felt  a  similar  reserve  in  regard  to 
mentioning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

There  are,  on  the  other  hand,  references  to  Jerusalem  which  have 
more  significance  if  the  temple  is  destroyed  (13: 14).  .  The  present  tenses 
which  seem  to  be  used  of  the  temple  sacrifices  must  be  explained  as 
historic  presents.  The  verb  in  8:136  is  a  present  expressing  a  general 
truth,  an  inference  from  what  precedes,  and  is  understood  by  the  author 
as  applying  to  the  Old  Covenant  when  the  quotation  from  Jeremiah  was 
originally  written.  The  difficulty  of  the  statement  in  8:4  is  relieved  at 
once  when  we  keep  to  its  context  and  notice  that  the  writer  is  speaking  of 
the  tabernacle,  not  of  the  temple. 

As  regards  the  readers  and  their  situation,  indications  point  perhaps 
most  plausibly,  all  things  considered,  to  Rome;  though  the  church  at 
Antioch  might  well  be  the  recipient  of  the  letter  written  from  Rome  or 
Italy  (13 :  24).  Too  much,  perhaps,  has  been  made  of  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  readers  were  Jews  or  gentiles.  That  the  church  or  churches 
addressed  were  a  unit  does  not  necessarily  mean,  as  Zahn  contends,  that 

»  Philo,  De  Providentia,  II,  sec.  107. 

338 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  13 

the  membership  consisted  either  of  all  Jews  or  all  gentiles.^  There  was 
unity  in  the  Antioch  church  before  the  Judaizers  came  and  stirred  up 
trouble  between  the  Jews  and  the  gentiles.  So  with  the  church  at  Rome 
to  which  Paul  wrote.  If,  as  we  have  suggested,  we  are  to  think  of  the 
letter  as  addressed  to  a  church  or  churches  in  Rome  we  may  possibly  see 
in  Hebrews  a  testimony  to  the  success  of  Paul's  great  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  The  church  was  composed  of  Jews  and  gentiles,  the  latter 
predominating;  and  Paul  wrote  them  chiefly  with  the  purpose  of  fore- 
stalhng  some  threatened  Judaizing  influence.  His  work  here  as  else- 
where was  successful  and  by  the  time  Hebrews  was  written,  possibly  to 
the  same  church,  the  danger  is  over,  the  whole  controversy  has  died 
down,  and  there  is  again  no  distinction  between  Jews  and  gentiles. 

If  it  be  objected  that  general  statements  in  the  letter  can  refer  only 
to  gentiles  (3:12;  5:12;  6:1  ff.;  9:14),  it  may  be  replied  that  the 
difficulty  is  relieved  by  two  considerations,  viz.,  that  the  majority  of 
readers  were  gentiles,  and  also  that  it  is  altogether  likely  that  even  the 
Jews  among  them  were  inclined  to  fall  back  into  a  state  of  materialistic 
and  formal  irreligion  rather  than  back  to  their  former  faith.  There 
were  different  types  of  Jews,  especially  among  those  of  the  Dispersion; 
and  it  is  altogether  natural  that  those  in  this  church  should  fall  into 
careless  discouragement  when  they  found  that  their  new  venture  into 
Christianity  was  not  fulfilling  expectations.  At  any  rate  it  is  clear  from 
the  epistle  that  the  author,  who  is  thoroughly  aware  of  their  situation, 
fears,  not  the  attractive  power  of  any  definite  form  of  religion,  but 
rather  the  subtle  power  of  unbelief,  indifference,  and  formalism.  The 
whole  weight  and  wording  of  his  warnings  is  against  a  negative  rather 
than  a  positive  danger,  against  neglect  (2:3),  against  losing  their  "bold- 
ness and  boasting"  (3:6),  against  an  "evil  heart  of  unbelief"  (3:12) 
and  the  " deceitf ulness "  of  sin  (3:13),  this  latter  phrase  implying  that 
they  might  find  themselves  in  the  fatal  situation  without  being  themselves 
aware  of  it. 

Their  danger  was,  in  a  measure,  like  that  against  which  the  ancient 
prophets  thundered,  the  danger  of  being  content  to  have  the  form  of 
godliness  without  the  power  thereof.  Therefore  the  exhortation  to 
hold  fast  the  beginning  of  their  confidence  firm  unto  the  end  (3:14, 15) 
as  the  essential  condition  of  really  being  partakers  of  the  Christ.  With 
this  agrees  the  rebuke  of  their  backward  and  imperfect  state  in  the 

'  Zahn,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  II,  349.  The  discord  in  the  Corinthian 
church  was  not  at  all  racial;  and  per  contra,  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  Hebrews 
racial  differences  need  not  cause  discord. 


14  HISTOKICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

digression  (5:11 — 6:20).  So  the  exhortation  (lorigff.)  is  full  of 
thoughts  which  are  naturally  directed  against  listlessness,  indifference, 
and  neglect.  In  10:29  the  attitude  pictured  is  one  of  neglect  and 
despite  of  the  grace  received,  and  the  warning  of  10:31  would  not  be 
well  directed  to  faithful  observance  of  legalistic  Judaism.  It  is  rather  a 
judgment  on  irreligion  and  godlessness.  In  fact  the  exhortations  and 
warnings  of  the  whole  epistle  (6:11, 12;  10:35,  36,  39),  while  they  cer- 
tainly imply  a  falling  away  from  Christianity,  imply  little  or  nothing  as 
to  any  positive  form  of  religion  which  attracts  the  readers. 

The  warning  of  13:9  ff.  is  perhaps  an  exception  to  this,  in  that  the 
Christian  readers  seem  to  be  attracted  by  some  form  of  sacrificial  meals 
which  they  think  will  strengthen  their  religious  life  but  which  the  author 
feels  are  worthless  for  that  purpose  and  have  no  place  in  Christianity. 
In  this  passage  it  is  quite  unnatural  to  make  the  "they"  of  vs.  10  denote 
the  same  persons  as  the  "we"  of  the  same  verse,  viz..  Christian  believers. 
The  verse  must  be  accepted  as  indicating  some  relation,  however  indirect 
("strange,"  vs.  8),  between  the  meats  which  are  attractive  to  the 
readers  and  the  Jewish  customs.  Even  this  would  not  necessitate  the 
assumption  of  Jewish  readers,  for  the  propaganda  of  Hellenistic  Judaism 
exerted  just  such  a  counter-attraction  to  Christianity  over  gentiles. 
But  granted  that  it  requires  Jewish  readers,  this  does  not  interfere  with 
the  thesis  above  expressed,  viz.,  that  the  warnings  indicate  the  main 
danger  of  the  readers  to  be  listlessness,  formalism,  lax  morality,  in  fact 
a  general  religious  criminal  negligence  without  any  special  attention  being 
paid  to  whether  they  are  Jews  or  gentiles. 

The  contrast  with  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  marked  in  that 
in  the  latter  the  defection  is  a  positive  one  to  a  positive  form  of  teaching 
clearly  revealed  in  the  epistle  itself.  The  cause  of  the  defection  in 
Hebrews  is  in  the  main  evidently  twofold,  viz.,  persecution  both  more 
intense  (12:3  ff.)  and  less  intense  (13:13),  and  disappointment  in  the 
hopes  that  they  had  entertained  in  embracing  Christianity  (6:13-20; 
10:25;  10:36;  12:1).  Trying  outward  circumstances,  combined  with  the 
failure  of  the  lapse  of  years  to  bring  the  good  things  promised  in  Christ, 
had  evidently  made  them  secretly  or  openly  question  whether  Christianity 
really  contained  that  which  could  adequately  reward  such  sacrifice  and 
suffering.^ 

It  is  to  meet  this  grave  tendency  to  formalism,  materialism,  irreligion, 
and  atheism  that  the  author  writes  this  epistle.  He  has  been  with  them 
or  at  least  has  known  their  circumstances  from  the  first.    For  some 

» McGiffert,  The  Apostolic  Age,  1903,  p.  469. 

340 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  15 

reason  he  is  now  separated  from  them.  But  the  need  is  so  urgent  and 
their  situation  so  grave  that,  though  he  expects  to  return  to  them  soon 
in  person,  he  must  write  this  word  of  exhortation  (13: 22)  to  arrest  their 
threatened  defection.  And  it  is  here  that  the  christological  significance 
of  the  epistle  becomes  evident.  For  the  author  feels  that  the  grave 
situation,  their  threatened  defection,  is  in  a  large  measure  due  to  their 
own  ignorance  of  the  glory,  power,  and  finality  of  their  Christian  pro- 
fession. They  do  not  fully  comprehend  that  which  they  have  professed 
— its  significance,  its  grandeur,  its  supremacy,  its  finality.  And  the  sum- 
total  of  all  this  supreme  significance  of  their  profession  is  foimd  in  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  who  is  High  Priest  forever  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek.  The  whole  epistle  is  an  exposition  of  the  mediatorial 
work  of  Christ  based  upon  the  supreme  significance  of  his  person. 

It  is  tempting  but  futile  to  continue  speculation  upon  the  identity  of 
the  author.  Some  modern  writers  think  favorably  of  Barnabas.'  For 
Luther's  famous  suggestion  of  ApoUos  it  can  at  least  be  said  that 
ApoUos  could  very  well  have  written  it;  there  is  no  evidence  whatever 
that  he  actually  did  write  it.=*  For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  determine  the  identity  of  the  author. 

It  is  well  however  to  get  a  clear  conception  of  the  writer's  training 
and  attitude  of  mind,  and  so  to  speak,  of  the  general  climatic  conditions 
of  thought  which  could  produce  such  a  writing.  It  is  clear  that  the 
author  has  been  under  Philonian  influence  more  than  any  other  New 
Testament  writer.^  This  marks  him  off  with  more  or  less  distinctness 
from  those  with  whom  his  teaching  has  a  certain  amount  of  agreement;^ 
It  does  not  mean  that  the  author  must  have  been  an  Alexandrian  in  the 
sense  of  having  lived  or  even  having  received  his  training  there.  But  he 
was  a  more  or  less  technical  disciple  of  Philonian  views  and  methods 
before  his  conversion  to  Christianity.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that 
Alexandrianism  was  a  part  of  the  general  religious  milieu  of  the  time  to 
a  greater  degree  than  has  hitherto  been  recognized. 

It  is  easy  to  make  too  much  of  real  or  alleged  blunders  in  connection 
with  his  descriptions  of  Old  Testament  ritual.  But  there  is,  nevertheless, 
an  element  of  uncertainty  that  suggests  that  the  author  gained  his 
knowledge  of  Judaism  by  academic  study.  It  was  not  altogether  native 
to  him.  Philonian  views  and  methods  were  native  to  him  but  his 
knowledge  of  both  Judaism  and  Christianity  came  by  earnest  continued 

^  Ayles,  Goodspeed.  3  Ibid.,  p.  478. 

*  McGiffert,  op.  cit.,  p,  480,  n.  2.  4  Paul  and  the  primitive  church. 

341 


16  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

study  and  meditation.*  It  will  be  shown  in  detail  later  that  the  author 
was  also  influenced,  at  least  indirectly,  by  elements  from  the  mystery- 
religions  of  his  time.  If  a  Jew,  as  is  likely,  he  was  a  Jew  of  the  Disper- 
sion, not  a  Palestinian  Jew. 

Where,  outside  of  Palestine,  could  such  an  author  have  written  such 
a  writing?  Possibly  in  Alexandria,  but  more  likely  in  Asia  Minor  or 
Syria  where  the  Christian  movement  secured  such  a  strong  foothold. 
The  atmosphere  here  was  strongly  Philonian.  Rome  is  the  most 
plausible  destination,  but  there  is  nothing  incongruous  in  supposing  the 
church  at  Antioch  to  be  the  recipient  of  the  letter.  Perdelwitz  combines 
the  two.^ 

To  sum  up,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  ca.  85  a.d.  by 
an  anonymous  writer,  probably  a  Jew  of  the  Dispersion,  who,  before  his 
conversion,  had  had  a  more  or  less  technical  training  in  Alexandrian 
philosophy  and  had  been  a  careful  student  of  classic  Judaism.  He 
writes  probably  to  a  church  or  section  of  a  church  in  Rome,  but  possibly 
to  the  church  at  Antioch  or  to  some  other  church  in  Syria  or  Asia  Minor. 
This  church  is  composed  probably  of  both  gentiles  and  Jews,  the  former 
predominating,  but  there  are  no  signs  of  division  within  the  church 
itself.  They  have  become  disheartened,  however,  through  hopes 
deferred  and  because  of  renewed  persecution,  and  they  are  ready  to  fall 
back  into  empty  formalism  or  into  actual  repudiation  of  their  Christian 
profession.  The  author  writes  to  call  them  back  to  their  first  faith  and 
enthusiasm,  and  as  a  means  to  this  end  he  sets  forth  the  supreme  great- 
ness and  glory  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  Grod,  and  of  the  salvation  which  he 
has  brought  to  them. 

III.      GENERAL  DOCTRINAL  VIEWS  AND  FRAMEWORK 

A  brief  discussion  of  the  general  method  and  doctrinal  content  of  the 
epistle  is  necessary  to  an  adequate  understanding  of  its  Christology. 
From  the  theological  no  less  than  from  the  literary  point  of  view  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  one  of  the  most  thoroughly  and  consciously 
artistic  of  all  the  New  Testament  writings.  From  the  literary  point  of 
view  this  is  made  manifest  not  only  by  the  writer's  splendid  diction,  his 
play  upon  words,  and  the  general  rhythmic  movement  of  his  language,^ 
but  also  by  the  dignity  and  even  sublimity  of  his  thought.    The  letter 

» McGiffert,  op.  cit.,  p.  481. 

'  Das  literarische  Problem  des  Hebraerbriefs,"  Z.f.N.T.W.,  1910,  S.  59,  105. 
«  Von  Soden  in  Handcommentar  zum  N.T.,  "Einleitimg  zu  Hebraer,"  IV. 

342 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   HEBREWS  17 

reveals  a  carefully  constructed  plan  with  skilful  transitions  and  judicious 
insinuations  of  words  and  anticipations  of  ideas. 

But  his  general  theological  attitude  is  that  which  is  of  importance  in 
this  connection.  It  is  to  be  noted  first  of  all  that  the  letter  is  not  in  any 
sense  an  exhaustive  theological  treatise.  It  manifests  some  traits  which 
are  somewhat  puzzling  and  which  incline  many  to  think  that  it  is  a 
treatise  or  homily  rather  than  a  letter.  But  it  bears  the  marks  of  a 
genuine  letter  to  people  with  whom  the  writer  had  been  closely  associated 
and  in  whom  he  was  personally  interested.  It  is  therefore  eminently 
practical.  Certain  great  doctrinal  features  stand  out  clearly  in  the 
epistle,  though  the  letter  does  not  furnish  a  complete  presentation  of 
Christianity  as  the  writer  conceived  it.  There  are  many  gaps,  much 
that  is  assumed,  and  the  doctrinal  ideas  that  are  presented  are  such  as 
contribute  to  the  intensely  practical  purpose  of  the  writer. 

Though  Alexandrian  in  training,  the  author  has  a  somewhat  elaborate 
eschatology  that  is  in  general  harmony  with  that  of  the  early  Christians. 
The  writer  considers  himself  and  his  readers  to  stand  at  the  close  of  one 
of  the  great  periods  or  "aeons"  of  the  world's  history  (1:2)  and  to  be 
looking  forward  to  the  second  great  period  or  "aeon"  which  is  imminent 
and  which  will  be  ushered  in  at  the  parousia  of  Christ  (10:25,  37). 
Between  these  two  great  periods  are  what  seem  to  be  days  of  transition, 
the  end  of  the  one  period  and  the  beginning  of  the  next,  days  which  the 
rabbis  called  the  "days  of  the  Messiah"  before  the  messianic  kingdom 
proper.  These  last  days  are  the  period  of  trial  and  persecution  for  the 
readers  and  believers,  and  the  whole  purpose  of  the  writer  is  directed 
toward  strengthening  them  for  these  days  until  the  better  days  of  the 
second  period  shall  have  fully  set  in. 

In  this  second  period  occurs  the  judgment  of  God  which  looms  large 
and  terrible  in  the  vision  of  the  writer.  In  one  passage  the  judgment  is 
put  after  death  (9:27),  but  not  necessarily  immediately  after  death. 
The  general  judgment  is  evidently  put  at  the  inauguration  of  the  second 
period  immediately  after  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  faithful  and 
obedient  pass  into  full  salvation,  the  realization  and  enjoyment  of  the 
promises;  the  neglectful  and  disobedient  into  destruction  (10:39;  ^f- 
2:3;  5:9;  6:9;  11: 40) .  This  judgment  is  final  (6:2).  It  is  repeatedly 
ascribed  to  God  (10:30,  31;  12:9;  12:23),  though  the  writer's  method 
of  ascribing  an  act  to  God  (2 :  10)  and  again  to  Christ  (i :  10)  or  to  Christ 
under  God  (1:2b)  does  not  absolutely  forbid  the  thought  of  Christ 
having  charge  of  judgment  under  God.  Of  the  intervening  state  of  the 
faithful  who  have  died  the  writer  says  nothing  definitely,  though  he 

343 


18  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

implies  that  they  are  in  some  sort  of  close  association  with  God  and  Jesus 
and  the  angels  (12:23).  In  life,  the  faithful  not  only  anticipate  but  in 
large  measure  realize  by  faith  the  salvation  which  comes  in  its  fulness 
only  after  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

As  the  old  and  the  new  revelations,  though  different,  are  yet  one 
(1:1,  2),  so  the  old  and  the  new  are  also  one  in  that  the  good  things 
brought  by  Christ  are  conceived  as  another,  a  new  covenant.  This  new 
covenant  has  come  in  God's  good  time  according  to  promise  (1:2;  8:8, 
13).  It  is  better  than  the  old  in  every  way,  its  superiority  being  pictured 
under  the  Platonic-Philonic  concept  of  type  and  reality.  The  old  was 
but  shadow,  the  new  is  substance.  The  old  was  type,  the  new  is  reality. 
The  old  was  earthly,  the  new  is  heavenly.  And  this  superiority  belongs 
to  the  new  covenant  all  through.  It  had  a  superior  priesthood  in  Jesus 
who  was  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.  It  had  a  superior 
law,  written  upon  the  heart.  It  had  a  superior  sacrifice,  even  the 
perfect,  final,  and  effective  sacrifice  of  Jesus  himself  in  his  voluntary  death. 
It  had  the  perfect  sanctuary,  not  of  this  world  but  in  heaven  itself  in 
the  very  presence  of  God.  It  may  be,  though  this  is  hardly  likely,  that 
the  writer  considered  the  old  covenant  with  all  its  ceremonies  and 
ordinances  as  in  every  particular  typical  and  in  everything  having  its 
real  fulfilment  in  Christianity,  the  new  covenant. 

While  the  old  covenant,  because  of  its  weakness  and  imperfection, 
failed  to  accomplish  its  real  purpose — forgiveness  of  sins  and  true 
fellowship  between  God  and  his  covenant  people — Christianity,  the  new 
covenant  mediated  by  Jesus,  secures  this  very  thing,  namely,  full  and 
final  forgiveness,  cleansing  of  the  conscience,  entrance  into  the  very 
presence  of  God,  and  finally  perfection  and  participation  in  God's  own 
Sabbath  rest.  This  is  the  "eternal  salvation"  (5:9)  which  is  due  to 
Jesus  as  its  cause  and  is  often  spoken  of  as  an  inheritance,  as  inheriting 
the  promises  (6:17;  9:15).  The  chief  thought  of  the  epistle,  however, 
is  that  of  Jesus  as  eternal  High  Priest  who  mediates  this  covenant  and 
secures  this  salvation  to  those  who  come  to  God  through  him  (7:25). 
The  writer  fails  to  make  quite  clear  the  picture  he  gives  of  the  future  age 
after  the  parousia  of  Christ.  At  times  he  seems  to  conceive  it  locally 
and  materially  (2 : 5)  as  a  renovated  earth  (12:27);  again  as  the  kingdom 
of  abiding  spiritual  reality  (12:28),  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  (12:22).  It 
is  likely  that  the  blending  of  the  two  ideas  did  not  seem  incongruous 
to  him. 

The  virtues  of  the  Christian  life  are  faith,  hope,  love,  fidelity, 
obedience,  patience,  and  hospitality.     Most  prominent  in  the  writer's 

344 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS  19 

presentation  are  faith  and  obedience.  These  are  considered  as  the 
essential  conditions,  and  yet  not  as  the  purchase  price  of  salvation. 
They  are  closely  related  in  the  writer's  thought,  in  fact,  are  almost 
interchangeable.  Faith  is  the  anticipatory  realization  of  the  unseen 
and  invisible  which  impels  to  obedience  and  endurance  (ii:i). 

The  universal  fatherhood  and  sovereignty  of  God  are  emphasized  in 
the  epistle  (12:9).  Jesus  as  Son  is  heir  of  all  things,  but  always  under 
God.  He  is  victor  over  death  and  the  devil,  as  the  deliverer  of  his 
people  (2:15);  himself  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep  raised  from  the 
dead  by  God  (13 :  20).  But  the  chief  picture  of  Jesus'  person,  character, 
and  work  is  presented  in  the  description  of  him  as  High  Priest  of  the  new 
order,  a  picture  drawn  on  the  background  of  Judaism. 

It  is  thus  clear  that  the  comparison  with  Judaism  is  fundamental  in 
the  presentation  of  the  writer,  not  only  because  he  is  firmly  convinced 
that  the  roots  of  this  new  faith  are  found  in  Judaism,  but  also  because 
for  the  people  among  whom  he  moved  and  for  whom  he  wrote — whether 
Jew  or  gentile — Judaism  was  accepted  without  dispute  as  supreme  in 
the  realm  of  religion.  Only  Christianity  could  be  compared  to  it;  but 
as  the  writer  compares  them  it  is  clear  that  not  only  is  Christianity,  the 
new  covenant,  far  better — it  is  the  perfect  and  final  fulfilment  of  Judaism. 
It  is  the  final  religion  of  which  Judaism  was  only  a  shadow  or  symbol. 
And  it  is  here  that  the  peculiar  world-view  of  the  writer  comes  to  his  aid. 
He  is  an  Alexandrian,  steeped  in  the  ideas  and  phraseology  of  that  school, 
probably  before  his  conversion  a  more  or  less  technical  disciple  of  that 
school.  With  the  utmost  ease  and  naturalness  he  does  what  every 
Christian  thinker  and  preacher  does,  viz.,  runs  the  content  of  his  new 
Christian  experience  into  the  forms  of  his  own  training  and  thinking. 
One  of  these  Alexandrian  thought-forms  was  the  contrast  of  the 
"intelligible"  and  the  "perceptible"  world,  the  world  of  ideas  and  the 
world  of  sense,  the  world  of  the  eternal  and  permanent,  and  the  world  of 
the  temporal  and  passing,  the  world  of  the  unseen  perfect  realities  and 
the  world  of  the  visible  imperfect  copies.  Using  this  familiar  Alexandrian 
contrast,  the  writer  puts  the  stamp  of  perfection  and  finality  upon 
Christianity  by  identifying  it  with  the  "intelligible"  world  of  abiding 
ideas  and  realities.  The  new  religion  of  Jesus  is  supreme,  perfect,  final, 
eternal,  and  that  which  makes  it  the  final  religion  is  the  person  (i.e., 
order,  rank)  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  Though  this  thought-content  is 
cast  in  a  philosophical  mold  it  is  clearly  the  product  not  of  his  philosophy, 
but  of  his  own  Christian  experience  and  that  of  his  fellow-Christians. 

345 


I.    HUMAN  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  CHRIST-CONCEPTION  OF 

THE  EPISTLE 

I.      THE  writer's  knowledge  OF  THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS 

In  considering  the  christological  material  proper,  the  first  question 
that  naturally  arises  is  that  which  relates  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
writer's  knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus.  It  is  clear  that  the  writer 
considers  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  and  that  he  holds  to  the  Palestinian 
eschatological  conception  of  the  division  of  time  into  ages  or  aeons  made 
by  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  This  would  not  be  conclusively  shown 
by  his  frequent  use  of  the  phrases  "unto  the  aeon"  and  "unto  the  aeons 
of  aeons"  (13 :  21)  which  might  be  general  expressions  meaning  "forever." 
But  that  the  author  did  hold  to  the  messianic  eschatological  division  of 
time  is  shown  by  such  expressions  as  "the  coming  aeon."  It  is  shown 
also  by  the  phrase  with  which  he  describes  God's  message  as  given  in  a 
Son  compared  with  that  given  long  ago  in  the  prophets,  the  phrase  "at 
[the]  end  of  these  days."  This  phrase  denotes  the  period  of  Jesus'  life 
and  teaching  while  he  was  on  earth,  that  which  is  called  today  the  period 
of  his  public  ministry.  The  phrase  is  a  thoroughly  Jewish  one  and 
reveals  an  element  in  the  writer  that  is  distinct  from  his  Philonian 
tendency,  for  it  is  decidedly  messianic  in  its  tone.  It  represents  the 
viewpoint  especially  of  later  Judaism,  though  similar  conceptions  are 
common  in  the  Septuagint.  There  is  the  aloiv  ovtos,  "this  age,"  set 
sharply  over  against  the  aliov  fiiWiov,  "[the]  coming  age."  The  "days 
of  the  Messiah"  are  evidently  conceived  as  falling,  partly  at  the 
end  of  "this  aeon"  and  partly  at  the  beginning  of  the  "coming  aeon," 
but  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah  is  regularly  placed  at  the  end  of 
"this  aeon."  The  phrase  ctt'  eaxdrov  twv  i7/ac/o<ov,  "at  [the]  last  of  the 
days"  (or  its  equivalent),  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  regularly 
used  to  denote  future  time,  comes  to  refer  generally  in  late  Judaism  and 
the  New  Testament  to  the  closing  of  "this  age."  The  writer,  therefore, 
makes  free  to  add  rovrwv,  thus  making  the  reference  to  this  age  more 
emphatic.  The  expression,  then,  denotes  the  same  as  iirl  o-wrcXeta 
Twv  aliovoiv  (9:26),  foimd  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  is  also  equiva- 
lent to  Ktttpos  8iop0(oa€o)s  (9:10),  "time  of  reformation."  All  of 
these  terms  denote  the  period  of  Christ's  life,  ministry,  death,  and 
exaltation. 

20  [346 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  21 

It  may  be  said  here  that  the  writer  does  not  distinguish  sharply 
between  the  "last  of  these  days"  and  the  "age  to  come."  But  the 
distinction  is  fimdamental  with  him  nevertheless.  The  world  to  come  is 
the  theme  of  his  epistle  (2:5).  The  old  covenant  belongs  to  "  this  age," 
the  new  covenant  to  the  "age  to  come."  But  the  "age  to  come"  is 
initiated  by  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  and  consummated  by  his 
second  appearance  (9:286).  This  consummation  at  the  second  appear- 
ance of  Christ  is  the  "day"  that  is  approaching  (10:256).  This  word 
"approaching"  has,  probably,  a  larger  content  than  temporal,  and 
indicates  the  pressure  of  the  powers  of  the  "age  to  come"  into  the  "last 
of  these  days"  (6:5).  There  are,  then,  only  two  clearly  defined  periods 
in  the  world-view  of  the  writer,  "  this  age  "  and  "  the  age  to  come."  But 
the  powers  of  the  "age  to  come"  are  in  a  measure  manifested  and  real- 
ized in  the  present.  The  "last  of  these  days"  is  at  once  the  close  of 
"this  age"  and  the  beginning  of  the  "age  to  come."  And  the  "age  to 
come,"  when  consummated  at  the  second  appearing  of  Christ,  is  the 
inhabited  world  that  is  to  be  (1:6),  or  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  (12:22). 

The  phrase  "at  the  end  of  these  days"  (1:2),  therefore,  denotes  the 
time  then  present  to  the  writer  but  as  evidently  goes  back  to,  and 
includes,  the  period  of  the  ministry  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  But  all  that 
the  introductory  verse  tells  us  is  that  in  these  final  and  momentous  days, 
as  contrasted  with  the  days  of  old,  God  spoke  a  message  in  a  Son,  later 
in  the  epistle  identified  with  Jesus  (2:9),  who  as  representative  man 
suffered  humiliation  in  his  death  and,  being  made  perfect  by  these  suf- 
ferings, was  exalted  to  his  present  estate  because  of  them.  In  these 
verses  the  fact  of  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the  sufferings  in  connection 
therewith  are  doubtless  in  the  writer's  mind  but  are  not  in  any  way 
historically  described.  The  death  of  Jesus,  however,  is  the  supreme 
act,  as  we  learn  not  only  from  this  passage  but  from  many  other  passages 
in  the  epistle. 

Of  more  weight  for  .this  section  is  the  view  of  the  writer  as  to  what 
was  necessary  that  this  supreme  act  of  sacrifice  in  death  might  be  effected 
and  thus  death  and  its  master,  the  devil,  be  subdued  and  the  children 
of  God  delivered.  This  was,  that  Jesus  himself  should  share  in  flesh 
and  blood  as  did  the  children  whom  he  would  deliver.  For  it  is  the 
conception  of  the  writer  that  the  deliverer  must  be  altogether  like  those 
whom  he  would  save.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  these  are  not  refer- 
ences to  the  historical  Jesus  but  rather  an  exposition  of  how  the  writer 
conceived  and  explained  to  himself  and  his  readers  the  genuine  humanity 
of  Jesus.    We  have  here  indeed  the  conception  of  the  writer  that  Jesus 

347 


22  HISTOKICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

was  a  being  who  did  thus  condescend  to  participate  in  flesh  and  blood, 
i.e.,  in  genuine  human  nature. 

The  writer  in  no  way  attempts  to  explain  how  this  participation  in 
full  human  nature  came  to  be.  But  this  should  not  lead  us  to  discount 
or  doubt  what  he  here  plainly  means  to  state,  viz.,  that  this  Jesus  was 
not  a  ghost  or  angel,  for  it  was  not  with  ghosts  or  angels  that  he  had  to 
do  but  with  men  who  should  become  his  followers  (2:16).  He  therefore 
also  shared  in,  took  part  in,  this  genuine  human  nature  with  all  that  it 
essentially  involved  of  suffering  and  temptation  in  order  that  he  might 
be  qualified  to  deliver  men.  The  author  has  the  conception  of  a  being, 
in  part  at  least,  developing  under  the  strain  of  hard  experience.  The 
result  of  this  experience  was  a  genuine  sympathy  with  men  in  their 
weaknesses,  and  an  ability  to  minister  seasonable  help  to  those  in  distress. 

But  a  more  decided  reference  to  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is 
found  in  5:7-10,  "who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,"  etc.  This  is  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  historical  life  of  Jesus,  specifically  to  his  experience  in 
the  Garden  of  Gethsemane.  The  phrase,  "with  strong  crying  and 
tears,"  while  not  at  all  out  of  harmony  with  the  accoimt  of  Mark  and 
Matthew,  throws  much  more  emphasis  upon  a  natural  human  weakness 
on  the  part  of  Jesus.  This  additional  emphasis  may  possibly  be  due  to 
the  author  himself,  but  much  more  likely  it  is  a  variant  from  oral  tra- 
dition which  seems  to  ring  true  to  the  actual  behavior  of  Jesus  in 
Gethsemane.  In  either  case  it  is  a  touch  which  puts  striking  emphasis 
upon  the  author's  view  of  the  genuine  humanity  of  Jesus.  The  rest  of 
the  description  likewise  puts  emphasis  upon  the  truly  human  and 
submissive  aspect  of  Jesus'  attitude  in  this  crisis,  in  order  to  emphasize 
the  point  of  the  preceding  verses,  viz.,  that  Jesus  did  not  take  this  office 
of  High  Priest  to  himself  but  was  called  to  it  by  God.  The  attitude  of 
the  devout.  God-fearing  man  is  ascribed  to  him  in  the  phrase  "having 
been  heard  for  his  godly  fear."  This  seems  to  be  the  best  and  most 
natural  meaning  to  give  to  this  phrase  and  it  need  not  call  for  anything 
more  by  way  of  an  answer  to  his  prayer  than  is  impUed  in  the  Matthew 
and  Markan  accounts  where  Jesus  is  finally  strengthened  to  say  "Thy 
will  be  done." 

The  whole  picture  of  this  section  is  so  characteristically  that  of  a 
devout,  God-fearing  man  in  the  midst  of  suffering  and  trial,  that  the 
writer  feels  constrained  to  add  that  "although  he  was  a  Son"  he  thus 
suffered  and  learned  obedience  by  what  he  suffered.  The  writer  was 
quite  conscious  of  the  hiatus  between  this  picture  of  a  devout,  praying, 
tempted.  God-fearing  man  and  the  conception  of  a  Son  to  whom  one 

348 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  23 

would  expect  obedience  to  be  natural,  and  not  require  such  arduous 
discipline  and  suffering  for  its  development.  This  phrase,  "even 
though  being  a  Son,"  in  this  particular  context  shows  plainly  that  the 
author  applies  the  word  Son  to  Jesus  as  he  would  not  and  does  not 
apply  it  to  men  in  general  or  to  any  other  created  beings.  Suffering  is 
the  common  lot  of  men.  It  is  the  means  of  learning  obedience  for  all 
Christians  (i2:4ff.),  but  the  strange  thing  is  that  it  is  also  fitting  and 
necessary  even  for  Jesus,  a  Son.  It  is  just  this  submission  and  victory 
in  and  through  this  experience  of  suffering  that  makes  him  efficient  in  his 
work  as  Savior  and  High  Priest  and  causes  God  to  address  him  as  such. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Son  partook  of  flesh  and  blood,  the 
writer  has  nothing  specific  to  say.  His  statement  that  it  is  evident  our 
Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah  (7:14)  may  only  echo  the  common  tradition 
of  the  church  independently  of  the  question  as  to  whether  this  descent 
is  traced  through  Joseph  or  Mary.  It  can  hardly  be  used  as  evidence 
that  Mary  was  of  David's  line,  nor  can  it  be  used  to  prove  that  the 
author  held  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  conception.  The  author 
refers  to  Jesus'  coming  into  the  world  (10: 5)  by  quotation  of  Ps.  40:6-8, 
"  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  didst  thou  prepare 
for  me."  The  writer  is  here  following  the  Septuagint,  as  he  regularly 
does.  This  gives  him  an  entirely  different  thought  from  that  of  the 
original  Hebrew,  "mine  ears  hast  thou  pierced";  but  this  need  cause  no 
difficulty  as  it  is  the  writer's  own  thought  that  is  being  considered.  The 
words  evidently  denote  for  him  the  incarnation  of  Jesus.  It  might  be  con- 
sidered that  this  phrase  favored  the  miraculous  conception,  but  it  would 
surely  be  pressing  the  words  too  far  to  say  that  they  demand  this  view. 
In  fact  the  words  might  be  used  of  anyone  by  one  who  holds  the  doctrine 
of  pre-existence,  as  the  speaker  in  Wisdom  of  Solomon  says  (8:19,  20): 
"Nay  rather,  being  good,  I  came  into  a  body  imdefiled,"  although  he 
had  just  said  (7:2):  "And  in  the  womb  of  my  mother  was  I  moulded 
into  flesh  in  the  time  of  ten  months,  being  compacted  in  blood  of  the 
seed  of  man,"  etc.  It  cannot  be  said,  therefore,  that  the  writer  of 
Hebrews  anywhere  reveals  how  he  conceived  the  incarnation  to  have 
taken  place.  This  may  be  considered  as  an  argument  so  far  forth  that 
he  thought  of  it  as  perfectly  normal.  In  any  case  it  is  this  body  which 
has  been  prepared  for  him  by  God  which  makes  possible  his  offering  and 
sacrifice  (10:10),  which  in  turn  leads  to  sanctification.  It  is  this  body 
that  is  the  veil,  and  the  offering  of  it  in  death  is  the  removal  of  the  veil 
which  opens  the  new  and  living  way  into  the  true  holy  place  (10:20). 

It  seems  evident  that  although  the  writer  is  not  concerned  with  the 

349 


24  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

earthly  life  and  ministry  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  he  is  nevertheless  reliably 
informed  about  it  (2:3)  and  sets  a  high  value  upon  it.  He  speaks  of  the 
great  salvation  spoken  first  by  the  Lord  himself.  With  him,  as  with 
Paul,  it  is  not  a  question  of  ignorance  but  rather  of  emphasis  and  of  the 
particular  purpose  in  view.  Where  the  events  of  Jesus'  life  specially 
illustrate  his  purpose  and  his  thought  he  shows  his  knowledge  of  them 
(5:7).  It  is  true  of  course  that  this  knowledge  is  not  first-hand  (2:3), 
but  full  weight  should  be  given  to  the  author's  statement  that  he  pos- 
sessed good  second-hand  testimony.  This  passage  however  does  not 
necessarily  or  even  probably  mean  that  the  author  was  a  personal 
companion  of  the  apostles.  The  writer's  description  of  the  course  of 
events  in  the  primitive  church  during  the  Apostolic  age  is  an  accurate 
one  (2:4)  judging  it  by  other  accounts.^  On  the  whole  it  would  seem 
that  the  author  has  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  historic  Jesus  than  he  has 
occasion  to  manifest  or  use.  His  work  is  rather  interpretative  and 
theological.  His  interest  centers  about  the  sacrificial  death  and  High- 
Priestly  work  of  Jesus. 

II.      HUMAN  ELEMENTS   IN  HARMONY  WITH  HIS  HISTORICAL  KNOWLEDGE 

In  advancing  beyond  actual  events  to  consider  what  appear  to  be 
genuinely  human  elements  ascribed  to  the  character  of  Jesus  by  the 
writer,  there  is  found  an  emphasis  quite  beyond  that  of  Paul  in  the  same 
sphere.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  in  appreciation  of  human  character 
and  its  development  in  the  midst  of  work  and  suffering  the  writer  of 
Hebrews  is  far  in  advance  of  other  New  Testament  writers  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  synoptists. 

There  are  some  passages  in  the  epistle  which,  while  evidently  based 
on  some  knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus,  at  the  same  time  exhibit  a 
development  toward  the  speculative  or  theological,  yet  without  going 
beyond  human  characteristics.  Such,  for  instance,  is  the  call  to  consider 
the  patient  endurance  which  Jesus  manifested  in  the  face  of  the  senseless 
and  inconsistent  opposition  at  the  hands  of  his  opponents,  called  sinners 
(12:3).  The  writer  evidently  has  in  mind  more  particularly  the  actions 
of  the  rulers,  the  people,  and  probably  the  Roman  soldiers  in  connection 
with  Jesus'  trial  and  crucifixion.  The  word  "such"  of  vs.  3  points  back 
naturally  to  "endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame"  of  vs.  2.  But 
the  point  to  be  noted  is  that  the  human  attribute  of  patient  endurance 
in  the  face  of  exasperating  opposition  against  righteousness  is  here 
emphasized.  It  is  a  characteristic  of  Jesus'  attitude  imder  persecution 
which  is  held  up  as  an  example  to  the  readers. 

350 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  25 

The  thoughts  in  12:2  are  similar.  There  are  a  number  of  difficulties 
in  this  verse  which  touch  vital  points.  The  chief  cause  of  difference  of 
opinion  is  as  to  whether  these  statements  apply  to  Jesus  in  his  earthly- 
life  or  to  the  Son  in  his  pre-existent  state.  One  is  tempted  with  the 
older  interpreters  (and  indeed  some  of  the  latest;  cf.  von  Soden,  Good- 
speed)  to  take  this  passage  as  a  parallel  in  substance  and  color  to  Paul's 
famous  statement  in  Phil.  2:6  and  perhaps  the  original  and  natural 
meaning  of  dvri,  viz.,  "instead  of,"  would  seem  to  favor  this  view. 
But  it  is  against  this  view  that  no  such  thought  is  found  elsewhere  in  the 
epistle,  and  its  occurrence  here,  while  not  inconsistent  with  the  author's 
view  of  Jesus,  seems  strange  and  the  interpretation  which  finds  it  here 
is  very  likely  the  result  of  the  widespread  influence  of  the  Pauline  passage 
and  possibly  of  the  view  of  Pauline  authorship.  This  is  the  more  likely 
in  that,  while  the  context  in  the  Philippian  passage  leaves  no  doubt  as 
to  the  reference  being  to  the  pre-existent  Christ,  the  context  in  the 
Hebrews  passage  is  decidedly  against  such  a  reference.  In  both  passages 
Jesus  (Phil.  2:6,  "Christ,"  "Christ  Jesus")  is  presented  as  an  example 
— in  the  Philippian  passage  as  an  example  of  splendid  self-denial  and 
sacrifice,  in  the  Hebrews  passage  as  an  example  of  patient  endurance  in 
the  face  of  persecuting  opposition  and  ridicule.  But  it  is  just  this 
difference  that  turns  the  scale  in  favor  of  reference  to  the  earthly  life  of 
Jesus  in  the  Hebrews  passage.  The  whole  exhortation  is  to  patient 
endurance  as  exemplified  in  the  attitude  of  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  his 
trying  earthly  experiences  (cf .  vs.  3  which  is  closely  connected  with  the 
previous  verse  by  "for").  It  may  be  answered  that  this  might  still  be 
true  with  the  view  which  refers  the  "joy"  to  the  preincarnate  life  of 
Jesus.  But  such  reference  to  a  "joy"  of  the  preincarnate  life  would  at 
least  be  a  disconcerting  thought  detracting  from  the  real  point  of  the 
exhortation.  It  is  therefore  more  natural  to  translate  "because  of  the 
joy  that  was  set  before  him"  and  interpret  the  "joy"  to  be  that  of  the 
"crowning  with  glory  and  honor"  with  the  sons  whom  he  leads  to  glory 
with  him.  This  view  is  favored,  too,  by  the  fact  that  while  there  are 
no  parallels  to  the  former  view  in  the  epistle,  there  are  parallels  to  the 
latter,  viz.,  1:9  and  2:9.  This,  then,  means  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
writer,  the  anticipated  feeling  of  joy,  the  courage  that  endured  the  cross, 
the  patience  that  bore  contradiction,  ridicule,  and  shame  were  all  of 
them  genuine  human  characteristics  of  the  earthly  Jesus  which  con- 
stituted him,  quite  above  the  heroes  of  faith  enumerated  in  chap.  11, 
the  supreme  example  to  the  sorely  tempted  readers  of  the  epistle. 

But  the  secret  of  this  much-needed  endurance  is  faith  and  this  again 

351 


26  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

is  a  true  human  quality  characteristic  of  the  earthly  Jesus,  and  is 
expressed  in  this  verse  by  "  author  and  perfecter  of  faith"  and  emphasized 
repeatedly  by  the  writer  throughout  the  epistle.  It  was  by  no  divine 
magic,  no  mere  "breath,  turn  of  eye,  wave  of  hand,"  that  he  "joined 
issue  with  death,"  but  by  the  power  of  that  genuinely  human  faith 
which  had  inspired  others  in  the  past,  faith  in  the  characteristic  sense  of 
the  writer  (ii:i)  which  is  convinced  of  things  unseen  and  gives  sub- 
stance to  things  hoped  for.  This  is  another  reason  for  translating  the 
phrase  "because  of  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,"  since,  so  translated, 
it  presents  a  splendid  example  of  a  high  human  faith  in  the  writer's 
characteristic  sense  which  is  entirely  fitting  in  this  context  but  which 
would  be  quite  lost  by  the  other  translation.  Faith  is  simply  unwavering 
confidence  in  the  hopes  and  promises  that  relate  to  the  future.  This  it 
is  that  begets  endurance  in  the  hard  lot  of  the  present,  and  it  was  just 
this  confidence  in  the  joy  that  lay  before  him  that  enabled  Jesus  to  bear 
the  cross.  This  same  faith  is  evident  in  the  passage  already  considered 
(5:7-10),  although  faith  is  not  there  named. 

The  writer,  therefore,  places  Jesus  in  the  same  class  in  regard  to 
faith  as  that  in  which  all  believers  in  God  are  placed  (11:6;  cf.  2:13). 
But  the  phrase  of  12:2,  "author  and  perfecter  of  faith,"  puts  Jesus,  in 
another  sense,  in  a  class  by  himself  as  supreme  exponent  and  example  of 
this  faith.  The  word  translated  "author"  denotes  primarily  "chief 
leader"  or  "captain,"  a  use  common  in  the  Septuagint.  But  the  word 
also  shades  readily  into  the  idea  of  "author"  or  "cause."  In  2:10  the 
context  almost  requires  "captain"  or  "leader,"  but  not,  perhaps,  to  the 
exclusion  of  "author"  or  "cause,"  which  latter  would  at  any  rate  express 
an  idea  clearly  held  by  the  writer  (5:9).  In  this  passage  (12:2),  again, 
the  context  favors  taking  apxqyo^  as  "captain"  or  "leader,"  i.e.,  in 
the  sense  of  supreme  example  or  exponent  of  faith  as  an  active  principle 
in  human  life.  Since  the  idea  of  faith  is  so  emphatic  and  characteristic 
in  this  writer,  there  is  no  adequate  reason  for  giving  the  word  faith  in 
this  passage  any  meaning  (as,  e.g.,  the  Christian  system)  different  from 
that  in  the  rest  of  the  epistle.  It  denotes  here  also  that  attitude  of 
thought  and  life  which  confidently  anticipates  the  future  and  realizes 
and  acts  in  view  of,  the  unseen.  Of  all  the  heroes  of  faith  Jesus,  though 
not  the  first  in  time,  is  the  first  in  rank,  the  great  exemplar,  the  supreme 
exponent  of  this  attitude  of  faith. 

Closely  related  to  this  truly  human  characteristic  of  faith  in  Jesus  is 
that  of  faithfulness  or  fidelity.  To  Moses  and  Jesus  alike  (3:2)  this 
quality  is  assigned;  but  to  Moses  as  servant  (3:5),  to  Jesus  as  Son  (3:6). 

352 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  27 

This  quality  of  faithfulness  is  also  assigned  to  Jesus  as  High  Priest  (2:17), 
and  with  it  is  combined  the  quality  of  mercy  (2: 17),  which  the  context 
shows  is  also  attributed  to  him  as  a  human  acquirement,  gained  by  his 
human  experience.  And  on  this  last  quality  of  mercy  in  its  various 
shades  the  author  lays  great  emphasis,  in  what  appear  at  first  sight  to  be 
two  different  ways  but  which  really  blend  into  one.  Jesus  is  subject  to 
suffering  and  temptation  exactly  (7rapa7rA?;o-ta>s,  2:14)  as  other  men. 
This  is  described  as  having  two  objects  in  view,  first,  that  he  might  become 
a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  (2: 17),  the  adjectives  here  used  per- 
haps corresponding  respectively  to  the  verbs  in  another  passage 
(awrraOrjcraLj  4:15),  "to  sympathize,"  and  (ftcT/otoTra^cTv,  5:2),  "to  deal 
moderately  or  fairly";  secondly,  that  the  captain  of  salvation  might 
himself  be  perfected  (2 :  10). 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  these  two  apparently  divergent  results 
really  blend,  in  that  the  perfecting  of  Jesus  consists  in  the  fact  that 
through  suffering  and  temptation  he  becomes  a  merciful  and  faithful 
High  Priest  and  leader.  But  the  notion  of  TcA.€t<u(ns  involves  more 
than  this.  In  2 :  10  the  context  indicates  that  it  denotes  that  condition 
which  leads,  dominates,  and  commands  effectually.  According  to  the 
psalm  quoted,  the  dominion  was  promised  to  man.  But  man  has  not 
proved  worthy  of  it,  with  the  exception  of  Jesus  who,  though  himibled 
for  a  season,  through  the  very  sufferings  of  his  humiliation,  has  gained 
that  perfection  which  secures  or  will  secure  to  him  this  universal  domin- 
ion. As  an  accompaniment  or  result  of  this  high  condition  of  perfection 
he  is  crowned  with  glory  and  honor.  In  5:9  these  two  shades  of  the 
notion  of  perfection,  viz.,  ability  to  save  and  inner  worth  or  character, 
are  more  closely  joined.  It  is  held  by  many  that  tcAciWcs  denotes 
in  this  epistle  only  official  perfection,  i.e.,  ability  to  save  men  through 
sympathy.^  But  to  speak  of  Jesus  as  learning  obedience  from  that 
which  he  suffered  shows  the  conception  of  the  development  of  a  devout 
character  of  personal  worth  in  relation  to  God.  The  passage  7:28 
further  shows  that  this  perfection  denotes  a  condition  of  character  which 
has  become  superior  to  and  therefore  now  free  from  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh  that  continually  attends  other  men,  even  priests.  This  weakness, 
indeed,  Jesus  has  shared  in  the  days  of  his  flesh  (5:2,  7);  and  memory 
of  experiences  in  it  still  abides  with  him  (2:18)  to  give  him  sympathy 
and  fairness  (5:2;  4:15).  But  the  state  of  perfection  free  from  this 
weakness  is  ascribed  to  him,  and  he  is  therefore  described  in  the  terms  of 
7:26  as  "holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separated  from  sinners  and  made 

I  So  A.  B.  Davidson,  Hebrews,  pp.  207  f.;  cf.  Perdelwitz,  op.  cit.,  S.  105  f. 

353 


28  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

higher  than  the  heavens,"  being  perfected  forevermore.  This  last 
passage  indicates  that,  as  will  be  shown  later,  there  are  elements  from 
the  mystery-religions,  in  the  writer's  conception  of  perfection. 

III.      GENERAL   STATEMENT 

The  above  goes  to  support  the  statement  that,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  synoptists,  there  is  no  other  writing  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  throws  into  such  bold  relief  the  human  elements  in  the 
personality  of  Jesus.  And  it  is  a  question  whether  the  synoptists  should 
be  excepted.  For  they  set  out  with  the  purpose  of  giving  an  account 
of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  while  on  earth.  It  is  therefore  only 
natural  that  they  should  have  a  larger  amount  of  the  human  element. 

The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  is  that  he 
views  character  developmentally  and  applies  this  developmental  view 
to  the  character  of  Jesus.  The  fact  that  the  language  of  5:14  refers 
rather  to  the  discernment  of  true  and  false  teaching  does  not  alter  the 
fact  that  the  language  and  thought  is  Stoic  and  was  generally  used  to 
refer  to  conduct  and  to  the  development  of  character.  And  the  fact 
that  the  writer  uses  this  language  implies  that  he  would  hold  the  same 
view  of  development  in  character.  The  language  is  probably  mediated 
to  the  writer  through  later  Stoicism  and  through  Philo.^  At  any  rate 
this  developmental  view  is  the  one  that  the  writer  presents  of  Jesus  with 
an  emphasis  and  an  insight  that  is  unusual  in  the  New  Testament. 

*  The  language  of  5 :  14  reminds  one  of  the  Stoic  Wise  Man;  cf .  Philo,  Leg.  Alleg., 
Ill,  64,  p.  94  E;  8s,  p.  104  D;  cf.  Sanday,  Christologies,  Ancient  and  Modern,  p.  180. 


364 


II.    TRANSCENDENT  ELEMENTS  IN  THE  CHRIST- 
CONCEPTION  OF  HEBREWS 

I.      THE  THREE  PERIODS  IN  JESUS'   CAREER 

Preparatory  to  a  consideration  of  the  transcendent  elements  in  the 
Christ-conception  of  the  writer  of  Hebrews,  it  may  be  well  to  present  a 
survey  of  the  writer's  conception  of  the  total  career  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  author  considers  that  there  were  two  pivotal  points  in  the  total 
career  of  this  person  for  whom  his  most  common  appellation  is  Jesus. 
The  first  of  these  is  described  as  "sharing  in  flesh  and  blood"  (an  aorist 
tense),  because  his  brethren  whom  he  would  save  from  the  fear  of  death 
partook  of  these.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  that  he  be  made  like  his 
brethren  in  all  things  (2:14,  17).  Again  this  is  referred  to  (10:5a)  as 
coming  "  into  the  world,"  and  in  the  same  verse  it  is  described  from  the 
divine  point  of  view  in  the  words  of  Ps.  40:6  ff.  which  are  interpreted 
messianically  and  therefore  put  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  as  he  is  conceived 
to  address  God  saying,  "  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me."  The  author 
gives  no  hint  as  to  how  he  conceived  this  incarnation  to  have  taken 
place.  It  is  simply  stated  as  a  pivotal  point,  a  coming  into  the  world, 
which  doubtless  means  an  entrance  into  this  human  life  of  men  upon 
earth,  the  period  spoken  of  as  "the  days  of  his  flesh"  (5:7). 

The  second  pivotal  point  in  the  career  of  this  Jesus  is  one  that  cannot 
be  so  clearly  defined,  but  which  may  best  be  stated  as  his  entrance  upon 
his  exalted  state,  which  is  described  as  taking  his  seat  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  (1:13)  by  the  command  of  God  himself.  This  event  in  the 
career  of  Jesus  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  epistle  (10:12;  10:13; 
10:37;  12:2).  It  is  referred  to  as  an  entrance  into  the  heavenly  world 
(6: 20),  the  real  sanctuary  (9: 24),  heaven  itself,  as  the  first  is  referred  to 
as  an  entrance  into  this  world,  this  earthly  life  (10:5a).  Closely  associ- 
ated with  this  event,  though  not  identical  in  point  of  time,  are  the  death 
(10:12a),  resurrection  (13:20a),  ascension  (4:14a),  and  anointing  of 
Jesus  (1:9^). 

In  addition  to  these  two  pivotal  points,  there  are  other  events  in  the 
career  of  Jesus  less  definitely  indicated.  How,  for  instance,  did  the 
writer  conceive  Jesus  to  have  been  or  to  have  become  the  Son  of  God  ? 
In  1 : 5  and  5:5  the  author  seems  to  consider  the  person  Jesus  to  have 
been  at  a  certain  fixed  time  constituted  and  hailed  Son  by  God.  Not  to 
355]  29 


30  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

any  of  his  fellows,  the  angels  (iigb),  did  God  ever  address  such  words; 
but  to  this  person  called  Jesus  he  said,  "Thou  art  my  Son,  I  today  have 
begotten  thee,  and  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father  and  he  shall  be  to  me 
a  Son."  But  the  author  does  not  enable  us  to  discern  clearly  when  that 
time  was.  It  must  be  inferred  from  5 : 8  that  Jesus  was  considered  Son 
during  his  earthly  period  and  therefore  the  reference  can  hardly  be  to 
his  resurrection  (as  in  Rom.  1:4)  or  to  his  exaltation.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence to  show  that  these  words  contain  a  specific  reference  either  to  the 
eternal  generation  or  to  the  incarnation.  If  they  are  not  to  be  taken  as 
denoting  a  fixed  point  at  which  Jesus  was  constituted  and  hailed  Son  by 
adoption  it  must  simply  be  considered  a  highly  figurative,  rhetorical  way 
of  recognizing  in  time  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  which  the  writer  considers 
continual  and  timeless.  This  view  might  be  taken  without  going  so  far  as 
to  say  with  von  Soden  that "  today  "  in  the  writer's  mind  actually  denoted 
the  timeless  eternity  of  God.  The  writer's  eschatological  division  of  time 
forbids  giving  this  meaning  to  the  word,  especially  in  the  discussion  of  the 
"rest  of  God"  in  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  (cf.  3: 13;  4:7). 

Another  special  point  in  the  career  of  Jesus  would  seem  to  be  indicated 
in  5 : 5  where  it  is  said  that  the  Christ  did  not  glorify  himself  to  become 
High  Priest  but  rather  that  the  honor  of  appointment  came  from  God 
who  had  said  to  him,  "Thou  art  my  Son.  I  today  have  begotten  thee"; 
and  who  also  said  "Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedek."  But  here  again  it  does  not  seem  that  the  writer  concerns 
himself  with  being  precise  in  regard  to  a  time  when  Christ  thus  became 
High  Priest.  It  must  be  recognized  that  the  whole  framework  of  Old 
Testament  ritual,  though  viewed  and  set  forth  by  the  writer  as  proof  of 
what  he  presents,  is  in  reality  only  a  fitting  but  imperfect  and  incom- 
plete illustration  or  analogy  of  what  Jesus  was  and  did.  In  other  words, 
what  is  true  of  New  Testament  writers  in  general  is  especially  true  of  the 
writer  of  Hebrews — they  see  Jesus  in  the  Old  Testament  only  ex  post 
facto.  There  is  something  startling  in  the  analogies,  or  at  least  in  the 
impression  made  by  their  sum-total,  and  one  may  not  lightly  say  that 
the  author's  elaborate  system  of  analogies  between  the  old  and  the  new 
covenants  is  only  an  ingenious  patchwork.  It  is  the  same  God  who 
spake  to  the  fathers  in  the  prophets  and  who  speaks  at  last  in  a  Son 
(1:2).  There  is  a  genuine  unity.  But  the  point  is,  that  what  is  primary 
with  this  writer,  as  with  all  the  New  Testament  writers,  is  the  impression 
of  Jesus  himself.  The  Old  Testament  is  seen  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  impression  of  Jesus;  it  is  not  Jesus  that  is  seen  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

356 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  31 

For  this  reason  it  is  plain  that,  to  say  nothing  of  the  analogies  not 
being  proofs,  many  of  them  are  imperfect  and  even  misleading  analogies. 
There  need  be  nothing  surprising  in  this.  The  surprise  rather  is  that  the 
author  finds  so  much  that  contributes  splendidly  to  the  exposition  of  the 
new  in  the  ritual  of  the  old.  But  it  would  surely  be  unwise  of  us  today 
to  try  to  press  the  analogies  farther  than  the  author  himself  has  pushed 
them.  This  many  are  inclined  to  do  (e.g.,  Bruce)  when  they  try  to 
state  a  definite  time  at  which  Jesus  became  High  Priest.  The  author 
perhaps  has  in  mind  that,  as  entrance  into  the  Holiest  was  the  great  act 
of  the  Aaronic  high  priest,  so  Jesus  when  he  passed  through  the  heavens 
(4:14)  and  became  manifested  on  men's  behalf  in  the  very  presence  of 
God  (9 :  24)  entered  upon  his  Priesthood.  And  most  of  what  is  said  on 
this  point  in  the  epistle  attributes  his  High-Priestly  work  to  this  stage 
(cf.  7 :  24;  8:3;  9 :  14).  But  the  writer  also  considers  him  priest  outside 
of  this  sphere  (7:27;  9:14;  10:10),  especially  in  offering  himself  once 
for  all  in  death.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  it  is  forcing  the  author 
into  too  precise  a  consideration  of  time  to  compel  him  to  say  just  when 
Jesus  became  High  Priest.  This  and  many  other  difficulties  in  inter- 
preting the  Priesthood  and  High  Priesthood  of  Jesus  arise  from  forcing 
the  typology  of  the  epistle,  from  forgetting  that  in  reality  the  typology 
is  an  illustration  ex  post  facto  and  not  a  proof.  In  the  view  of  the  writer 
Jesus'  High-Priestly  acts  constitute  him  High  Priest  rather  than  any 
inauguration  to  his  office  at  a  specific  time. 

Still  one  other  point  appears  of  signal  importance  in  the  career  of 
Jesus,  viz.,  that  at  which  all  his  enemies  are  to  be  made  the  footstool  of 
his  feet.  This  is  no  doubt  identical  with  the  time  of  his  second  appear- 
ance in  the  world  of  men  (1:6),  which  is  also  to  be  the  point  of  time 
when  the  full  salvation  is  brought  in  (9:28),  when  the  full  sabbatismos 
or  rest  of  God  is  realized  (4:9),  when  all  the  faithful  of  the  old  and  the 
new  covenants  shall  together  realize  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promise  of 
full  perfection,  delayed  so  long  for  the  sake  of  those  of  the  latter  days 
(11:39,  40).  The  writer  sees  this  day  approaching  (10: 25^)  and  there- 
fore urges  greater  earnestness,  diligence,  and  endurance;  for  in  the  words 
of  Habakkuk  the  coming  one  will  come  quickly  (10 :  37) .  Associated  with 
the  events  of  this  time  is  the  idea  of  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth 
so  far  as  it  is  held  by  this  author  (12 :  26,  27),  and  the  complete  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  God,  perfect  and  unchangeable  (12:28,29).  This 
subordinate  point  of  time,  therefore,  is  one  which  the  author  presents  with 
much  more  singleness  and  definiteness  than  either  that  of  the  acquire- 
ment of  the  Sonship  or  that  of  the  acquirement  of  the  Priesthood. 

357 


32  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

By  the  two  pivotal  points  already  indicated  which  we  may  call  the 
incarnation  and  the  exaltation,  the  career  of  Jesus  as  presented  by  the 
writer  is  divided  into  three  definite  states  or  stages  which  may  be  termed 
the  period  of  pre-existence,  the  earthly  period  of  the  days  of  his  flesh, 
and  the  period  of  exaltation.  They  might  be  termed  technically,  pre- 
incarnate,  incarnate,  and  postincarnate.  These  are  sharply  defined 
but  it  is  clear  that  the  epistle  considers  them  as  different  stages  in  the 
career  of  one  and  the  same  person.  The  most  common  name  which  the 
writer  uses  is  the  simple  historical  name  Jesus,  while  the  most  exalted 
name  is  Son  or  Son  of  God,  though  these  latter  are  titles  rather  than 
names.  One  would  almost  expect  him  to  confine  the  use  of  the  name 
Jesus  to  the  period  of  the  days  of  his  flesh,  but  he  does  not  do  so. 

As  to  the  preincarnate  period  it  is  stated  of  this  person  Jesus  that  he 
made  the  worlds  ("aeons,"  1:2;  i :  10  ff.),  that  he  was  the  effulgence  of 
God's  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  substance,  that  he  sustained  the 
universe  by  the  word  of  his  (God's)  power  (1:3).  That  he  was  in  the 
beginning  is  implied  (i :  10),  and  that  the  heavens  and  earth  are  transitory 
while  he  is  unchanging  and  eternal  is  stated  in  i:  11,  12.  In  2:11  it  is 
implied  that  even  in  this  preincarnate  state  he  bore  some  special  relation 
to  men  which  ("for  which  reason,"  2:11)  constituted  them,  or  at  least 
led  him  to  call  them,  brethren.  And  just  because  these  brethren  had 
their  lot  in  flesh  and  blood  he,  too,  partook  of  the  same.  But  the  reason 
for  this  was  that  it  was  necessary  in  order  to  do  for  them  that  which  he 
wanted  to  do  or  felt  obliged  to  do  just  because,  in  his  preincarnate  state, 
there  already  existed  a  bond  between  them,  since  both  sanctifier  and 
sanctified  were  all  of  one  (2:11)  (as  we  might  say,  "all  of  a  piece").  It 
is  hardly  satisfactory  to  the  context  and  the  general  thought  of  the 
writer  to  take  this,  as  most  interpreters  do,  to  denote  that  they  have  a 
common  origin  in  God;  for  God,  in  the  thought  of  the  writer,  is  the 
common  origin  of  all  things  (2 :  10) — angels,  demons,  men,  and  worlds. 
It  is  more  likely  that  the  phrase  means  "of  a  piece,"  for  this  harmonizes 
better  both  with  the  preceding  and  the  following  verses.  The  sanctifier 
and  sanctified  are  all  "of  a  piece,"  i.e.,  both  the  captain  of  salvation  and 
the  "sons"  belong  to  the  same  company:  they  form  a  unit.  The 
captain  is  not  a  foreign  ruler  imposed  upon  the  company,  but  is  one  with 
them.  And  the  three  citations  which  follow  (vs.  11)  emphasize  this 
same  thought,  viz.,  the  community  and  identity  of  the  captain  with  his 
company.  If  it  be  said  that  this  community  or  identity  is  presented 
rather  as  holding  good  in  the  preincarnate  state,  even  before  being 
realized  in  the  earthly  period,  it  is  perhaps  best  explained  as  being 

358 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  33 

carried  back  in  thought  from  the  earthly  period  and  applied  to  the  pre- 
incamate  period  though  it  does  not  strictly  belong  there.  This  is  not 
an  unusual  thing  in  our  writer.  If  it  is  still  felt  that  this  is  not  enough 
to  account  for  the  ascription  of  relationship  in  the  preincarnate  state, 
that  relationship  should  be  found  in  something  more  special  than  simply 
a  common,  otherwise  undefined,  origin  from  God.  It  might  consist  of 
the  special  relationship  of  "sons"  (2:10),  which  is  such  as  to  exclude 
having  anything  to  do  with  angels  or  other  beings.  It  might  hint  at 
the  common  pre-existence  of  all  souls. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  present  again  the  material  which  is  found  in  the 
writer  concerning  Jesus  during  the  earthly  period  spoken  of  as  "  the  days 
of  his  flesh."  This  has  already  been  fully  presented  under  the  headings 
of  the  writer's  knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus  and  human  elements 
in  harmony  with  this  knowledge. 

It  remains  to  present  the  material  coming  under  the  third,  the 
heavenly  or  exalted,  state  of  Jesus.  There  is  considerable  vagueness 
with  regard  to  the  initial  stages  of  this  postincarnate  period.  The  line 
between  the  postincarnate  period  and  the  earthly  period  is  not  clearly 
marked,  there  being  a  number  of  events  that  belong  to  both.  There  is, 
so  to  speak,  a  vestibule  or  entrance  to  the  postincarnate  period  proper. 
To  this  vestibule  belongs  the  great  sacrificial  act — the  voluntary  death 
(7:27);  also  the  resurrection  (13:20)  and  the  ascension  of  Jesus  (4:14), 
though  the  writer  does  not  give  a  detailed  description  of  them.  Of  the 
ascension,  it  is  not  certain  that  the  author  had  such  a  conception  as  that 
which  the  writer  of  Acts  gives,  though  the  phrase  "passed  through  the 
heavens"  might  naturally  correspond  (cf.  4:14;  9:24).  Following  this 
is  the  exaltation,  which  ushers  in  the  postincarnate  period.  It  is  spoken 
of  as  an  anointing  (1:9),  as  being  crowned  with  glory  and  honor  (2:9), 
as  sitting  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  (i :  13;  10: 12). 

This  is  a  solemn  inauguration  into  the  state  which  the  writer  con- 
siders supreme  in  Jesus'  career,  the  state  of  exaltation.  It  is  the  period 
in  which  Jesus  exercises  his  real  and  eflScient  ministry.  It  is  the  impor- 
tant period  for  which  the  preceding  period  was  but  preparation.  Positive 
activities  are  assigned  to  Jesus  in  the  preincarnate  period,  viz.,  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  the  sustaining  of  it.  And  in  the  incarnate 
period  he  is  spoken  of  as  being  the  first  to  proclaim  the  salvation  (2:3). 
But  the  emphasis  on  his  activity  in  these  periods  is  exceedingly  slight. 
His  real  activity  is  in  the  postincarnate  period.  In  this  period  he 
receives  his  inheritance  (1:2).  It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  words 
"the  effulgence  of  his  glory  and  the  very  image  of  his  substance"  apply 

359 


34  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

only  to  the  preincarnate  and  postincarnate  periods  or  cover  his  whole 
career.  It  is  in  this  period  of  exaltation  that  his  death  is  efficacious  in 
delivering  his  followers  from  the  fear  of  death  (2:14,  15)  and  in  their 
sanctification  (10:10,  14).  Though  the  author  is  indefinite  as  to  the 
time  of  Jesus'  becoming  High  Priest,  it  is  in  this  period,  clearly,  that  he 
considers  him  as  fully  exercising  his  High-Priestly  office  (6:20;  7:28; 
8:1-3;  10:21)  on  behalf  of  men  before  God  (9:24),  in  securing  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  committed  under  the  old  covenant  (9:15),  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  conscience  from  dead  works  (9: 14),  and  full  and  free  access  to 
God  (4:16;  10:19).  It  is  through  his  High-Priestly  activity  in  this 
period  that  he  brings  to  bear  those  qualities  and  capacities  gained  in  the 
experiences  of  the  earthly  life  by  delivering  from  temptation  (2:18), 
laying  hold  of  men  to  help  them  (2:16),  making  propitiation  for  the  sins 
of  the  people  (2:17),  and  in  being  merciful  and  faithful  (2:17;  3*i)* 
In  short,  he  is  now  the  cause  of  eternal  salvation  to  those  who  obey  him 
(5 : 9)  and  is  so  continually  and  completely  because  he  is  now  exercising 
as  High  Priest  the  power  of  an  endless  life  (7:16,  24).  To  this  period 
pre-eminently  applies  the  statement  that  he^  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  same 
yesterday,  today,  and  forever  (13:8).  He  is  the  mediator  and  sponsor 
of  a  better  covenant  (7:22;  12:24),  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our 
confession  (3:1),  to  whom  believers  must  look  as  the  supreme  example 
and  the  author  and  perfecter  of  faith  (12:2). 

It  is  during  this  period  that  Jesus  waits  (10: 13)  until  his  enemies  be 
made  the  footstool  of  his  feet  (1:13).  Just  what  is  implied  in  this  the 
writer  does  not  say.  But  he  evidently  holds  to  a  division  of  this  period 
of  exaltation  by  a  definite  time  at  which  Jesus  shall  come  again  (9:28). 
At  this  time  all  enemies  shall  have  been  subjected  to  him.  With  this 
time  shall  come  the  judgment,  though  this  judgment  is  ascribed  to  God 
— not  to  Jesus  (4:13^;  6:7,  8;  10:30;  12:23,  25,  26,  29;  13:4).  With 
it  shall  come  what  in  our  writer  corresponds  to  the  new  heavens  and  the 
new  earth  of  Paul,  the  shaking  of  the  things  that  are  superficial  and 
transitory  and  the  bringing  in  of  the  kingdom  that  cannot  be  shaken, 
the  kingdom  of  abiding  realities  which  belongs  to  believers  (12:27). 
This  is  the  ushering  in  of  the  full  fruition  of  faith  (11 :39),  the  realization 
of  the  full  salvation  (9:28),  the  perfect  rest  of  God  long  deferred  (4:9). 
Though  little  is  said  as  to  Jesus'  position  in  this  new  world  of  perfect  and 
abiding  reality,  it  would  appear  that  the  best  interpretation  of  2 : 5  would 
make  it  subject  to  Jesus  as  heir  of  all  things  under  God  (1:2).  This 
second  part  of  the  postincarnate  period  is  conceived  of  as  the  final  and 
eternal  realization  of  the  good  things  brought  through  Jesus  (9:11;  10 :  i), 

360 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  35 

of  the  completed  house  of  God  over  which  Jesus  presides  (3:6).  It  is 
the  better  thing  of  11:39,  viz.,  the  united  realization,  on  the  part  of  all 
believers  past  and  present,  of  the  promise  of  God,  not  granted  to  the 
heroes  of  the  old  covenant  in  spite  of  their  faithfulness,  that  all  might 
enjoy  it  together. 

These  three  periods,  preincarnate,  incarnate,  and  postincarnate, 
constitute  the  career  of  Jesus,  the  latter  period  being  divided  by  the 
second  coming  to  inaugurate  the  kingdom  which  cannot  be  shaken. 
These  are  not  progressive  stages,  though  they  are  clearly  stages  in  the 
career  of  one  and  the  same  person.  It  is  remarkable  how  little  is  said 
that  applies  to  the  preincarnate  stage.  Yet  what  little  is  said  is  of  such 
a  high  tenor  that  it  forbids  the  conception  that  in  his  real  character  and 
nature  this  person  experienced  a  continuous  development  from  lower  to 
higher  or  from  imperfect  to  perfect.  The  writer,  indeed,  dwells  much 
on  the  ''perfecting"  of  Jesus  through  sufferings  but  this  does  not  involve 
continuous  progression  through  three  periods.  One  who  was  the  Son  of 
God,  through  whom  he  made  the  worlds  and  probably  the  supporter  of 
those  worlds,  the  effulgence  of  God's  glory  and  impress  of  his  substance 
in  the  preincarnate  state,  could  not  be  conceived  of  as  progressing  through 
these  three  stages.  Moreover,  the  earthly  career  of  Jesus  would  render 
impossible  such  a  conception.  Such  an  exalted  preincarnate  condition, 
even  though  comparatively  little  is  said  about  it,  would  compel  the  author 
to  present  the  earthly  period  as  one  of  humiliation. 

But  the  case  is  quite  different  when  considered  from  the  point  of 
view  of  Jesus'  office  and  work,  the  preparation  for  it  and  the  glory 
attending  it.  Here  it  would  seem  that  the  author  wishes  to  give  us  the 
picture  of  progression.  The  earthly  stage  of  his  career  is  a  humiliation 
to  be  sure,  a  diminishing  in  dignity  as  compared  with  the  angels  (2:9), 
but  it  is  only  for  a  short  time  and  for  a  glorious  purpose,  viz.,  the  bringing 
of  many  sons  into  glory.  For  this  reason  he  too  shared  in  flesh  and 
blood  as  the  rest  of  these  sons.  For  this  reason  also  it  was  eminently 
fitting  that  God  should  perfect  him  through  suffering,  that  is,  perfect 
him  for  the  fulfilment  of  this  high  and  glorious  task.  And  it  is  the 
accomplishment  of  this  high  task  in  its  full  perfection  that  is  the  joy  set 
before  him  (12 : 2),  the  gladness  that  he  enjoys  beyond  his  fellows  (1:9). 
This  is  the  kingdom  which  he  inherits  (1:2)  as  the  permanent  repre- 
sentative of  God,  for  the  author  of  Hebrews  has  no  statement  of 
Jesus'  giving  up  the  kingdom  to  God  such  as  characterizes  Paul's  view. 

There  is,  therefore,  a  progress  through  these  three  stages,  but  it  is 
in  the  career  of  Jesus  rather  than  in  his  character  and  person.    It  is 

361 


36  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

true,  however,  that  the  experiences  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  his 
vocation  reacted  upon  his  character,  calling  forth  and  developing  such 
genuinely  human  qualities  as  faith,  fidelity,  compassion,  fair  dealing 
(5:2),  reverence  (5:7),  obedience  (5:8),  patient  endurance  (12:3),  all  of 
which,  though  viewed  by  the  writer  as  qualities  essential  to  the  successful 
carrying  out  of  his  vocation,  must  at  the  same  time  have  been  viewed  by 
him  as  noble  human  qualities  as  well. 

II.      CHRIST  AS  SUPERIOR  TO  THE  ANGELS  AND  MOSES 

In  seeking  to  show  the  transcendent  elements  which  enter  into  the 
character  and  nature  of  this  person  it  will  be  well  to  begin  with  his 
superiority  to  the  angels.  This  the  writer  emphasizes  strongly  and  with 
considerable  detail.  The  suddenness  with  which  the  writer  descends 
from  the  beautiful  and  exalted  language  and  thought  of  the  first  three 
verses  of  the  first  chapter,  which  form  an  imposing  vestibule  to  a  noble 
edifice,  to  the  apparently  insipid  statement  of  vs.  4,  "having  become  by 
so  much  better  than  the  angels  as  he  has  inherited  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they,"  is  at  first  disappointing;  but  such  a  feeling  and  atti- 
tude is  modern,  betraying  a  failure  to  enter  into  the  thought,  view,  and 
situation  of  the  writer.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  say  with  Bruce  that 
the  writer  here,  in  true  apologetic  fashion,  is  accommodating  himself  to 
the  peculiar  views  of  the  readers  who  made  much  of  angels  and  con- 
sidered Jesus  an  angel.  There  is  no  evidence  from  the  epistle  that  the 
writer  considered  his  readers  to  hold  heretical  views  or  even  exaggerated 
views  concerning  the  angels.  He  depreciates  the  dignity  and  work  of 
the  angels  only  in  contrast  with  the  superior  dignity  and  work  of  Christ. 

This  is  perfectly  natural  and  reasonable  when  we  consider  what  a 
prominent  part  angels  played  in  the  ancient  religious  economy.  It  is 
evident  that  in  various  ways  the  author  himself  shared  these  views 
concerning  the  high  office  of  angels.  He  speaks  of  entertaining  strangers 
as  possibly  entertaining  angels  unawares  (13 :  12) ;  he  speaks  of  "myriads " 
of  angels,  even  a  festal  assembly  and  convocation  of  firstborn  who  are 
enrolled  in  heaven.'  Of  itself  this  reveals  a  high  conception  of  angels 
on  the  part  of  the  writer.  He  speaks  of  the  specific  and  ordinary  function 
of  angels  as  being  that  of  ministering  spirits  sent  forth  to  minister  on 
behalf  of  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation  (i :  14).  But  it  is  not  of 
angels  that  Jesus  lays  hold  to  help  (2:15),  nor  is  the  world  to  come,  the 
future  kingdom  of  abiding  reality,  to  be  subjected  to  angels  (2:5).  The 
reason  for  his  making  this  latter  statement  is,  doubtless,  the  idea  con- 

^  Cf.  Peake,  Hebrews,  ad.  loc,  p.  233. 

362 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  37 

tained  in  the  phrase  "the  word  spoken  through  the  angels  proved 
steadfast"  (2:2).  The  writer  evidently  has  the  conception,  more  clearly- 
expressed  by  Paul  and  common  to  the  primitive  Christians,  that  the  old 
covenant,  with  its  law  and  promises  and  warnings,  was  mediated  through 
angels. 

This,  then,  is  the  conception  that  causes  and  justifies  the  extended 
contrast  between  Christ  and  the  angels  which  is  put  prominently  first  in 
the  epistle  (1:5-14).  If  the  word  of  the  old  covenant  spoken  through 
angels  was  steadfast  and  every  transgression  and  disobedience  received 
a  just  recompense,  they  surely  cannot  expect  to  escape  who  neglect  a 
word  that  is  spoken  through  the  Lord  who  is  so  superior  in  dignity  and 
person  to  the  angels.  The  degree  of  this  superiority  is  expressed  in  1 14, 
"having  become  by  so  much  better  than  the  angels  as  he  has  inherited 
a  more  excellent  name  than  they."  The  word  translated  "better"  is 
indefinite;  it  means  "superior"  without  denoting  in  what  the  superiority 
consists.  There  is  no  reference  in  the  word  to  moral  worth  or  character. 
Clement  of  Rome  {Ad  Cor.  1:36)  was  probably  unconsciously  influenced 
by  the  true  shade  of  meaning  here  when,  in  quoting  this  passage,  he 
substituted  the  word  fiet^wv  for  k/ocittwv,  i.e.,  "greater,"  "superior" 
in  point  of  dignity  and  rank,  since  he  is  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
majesty  on  high. 

But  the  reason  for  this  high  place  in  dignity  and  rank  above  the 
angels  is,  that  he  has  inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they.  Earlier 
interpreters  took  this  word  "name"  in  the  general  sense  so  frequent  in 
Scripture,  as  denoting  "dignity,"  "glory,"  "fame"  (cf.  Phil.  2:9). 
Modern  interpreters,  however,  largely  agree  in  understanding  the  author 
to  have  in  mind  the  specific  name  "Son."  This  seems  at  first  natural, 
as  the  next  two  verses  contain  the  name  "Son"  and  are  closely  connected 
with  the  preceding  by  the  word  "for":  "For  to  what  one  of  the  angels 
did  he  ever  say.  Thou  art  my  Son,  I  today  have  begotten  thee  ?  And 
again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  But  vs.  6 
continues  the  thought  of  the  high  dignity  of  Christ  without  any  reference 
to  the  specific  name  "Son."  Moreover,  the  rest  of  the  quotations  in 
this  chapter  have  no  reference  to  the  specific  name  "Son."  It  seems 
better  therefore  to  hold  to  the  older  interpretation.  The  word  "name" 
denotes  the  higher  dignity,  rank,  worth,  and  fame  of  Christ.  This  is 
shown  from  Old  Testament  Scripture  in  vss.  5  and  6  by  the  fact  that  the 
intimate  relation  denoted  by  the  word  "son"  exists  between  him  and 
God,  a  term  which  Scripture  has  never  used  of  any  one  of  the  angels; 
also  by  the  fact  that  when  Christ  comes  a  second  time  into  the  world 

363 


38  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

all  the  angels  of  God  are  to  worship  him.  Vss.  7-12  show  the  superiority 
of  Christ  over  the  angels  in  that  while  they  are  changeable  forms  of 
being  that  pass  into  the  forces  of  Nature  at  the  will  of  God,  Christ  is 
not  like  the  angels,  subject  to  such  change  into  the  elements,  for  under 
God  (1:2),  he  himself  made  the  world,  the  heavens,  and  the  forces  of 
Nature;  and  thus,  though  they  change,  he  changes  not  but  abides  the 
same  eternally.  Moreover,  God  never  called  any  angel  to  share  with 
him  his  throne  (1:13)  and  with  it  universal  dominion.  Thus  Christ 
is  superior  to  the  angels  in  that  he  enjoys  the  intimate  relationship  of 
Son  to  God,  eternal  dignity  and  worth  which  are  superior  to  world- 
changes,  and  finally,  royal  rank  in  sharing  with  God  his  throne  and 
promised  universal  dominion. 

More  obvious  to  us  is  the  effort  of  the  author  to  show  the  superiority 
of  Christ  over  Moses.  Even  today  we  appreciate  the  exalted  part  which 
Moses  played  in  connection  with  the  establishment  of  the  old  covenant, 
though  we  scarcely  accord  him  the  great  glory  with  which  not  only  the 
Jews,  but  also  the  devout  gentiles  of  antiquity,  encircled  his  name. 
His  name  was  prominent  among  the  Jews.  And  the  author  of  Hebrews 
does  not  by  any  means  intend  to  depreciate  his  glory.  He  considers 
him  the  great  apostle — ^perhaps  also  priest — of  the  old  covenant,  the 
mediator  between  God  and  his  people.  In  11:23  ff.  he  describes  him 
among  the  other  heroes  of  faith  with  exceptionally  vivid  touches;  he 
speaks  of  him  as  choosing  the  reproach  of  the  Christ,  by  which  phrase 
he  designates  the  sufferings  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
Testament  people  of  God  (11 :  26).  Moses  is  the  great  example  of  faith 
under  the  old  covenant  as  Jesus  himself  is  under  the  new  (12: 2).  The 
commands  of  the  old  covenant  he  calls  the  "law  of  Moses"  (10:28),  a 
law  that  was  strictly  and  terribly  enforced.  Moses  was  the  great  leader 
of  the  people  from  Egypt  (4: 16)  and  the  one  who  was  directed  by  God 
and  intrusted  with  the  task  of  making  the  tabernacle  according  to  the 
pattern  revealed  to  him  in  the  Mount  (8:5). 

The  writer,  therefore,  holds  the  high  opinion  of  the  place  of  Moses 
peculiar  to  his  people.  He  is  careful  not  to  offend  his  readers  in  his 
discussion  of  the  superiority  of  Jesus.  For  in  3 : 1-6  he  begins  by  placing 
them  on  a  par  in  the  quality  of  faithfulness  which  both  Moses  and  Jesus 
manifested  in  their  respective  missions.  This  was  a  quality  displayed 
in  the  fulfilment  of  their  official  tasks.  But  in  the  nature  and  glory  of 
his  person  and  position  Jesus  is  far  superior  to  Moses.  He  is  as  superior 
in  glory  as  the  builder  of  a  house  is  superior  in  glory  to  the  house  itself. 
The  word  "house"  is  not  used  here  only  in  the  limited  sense  of  a 

364 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  39 

*' building "  but  in  the  fuller  sense  of  the  "household."  In  fact  it  is  used 
in  a  still  larger  sense  as  denoting  that  over  which  anyone  has  control  or 
jurisdiction,  as  a  king's  people  or  kingdom  was  spoken  of  as  his  "house." 
The  three  meanings  of  "building,"  "household,"  and  "people"  or 
"kingdom"  are  here  involved.^ 

The  most  natural  and  consistent  interpretation  of  this  seems  to  be 
that  Moses,  great  though  he  was,  was  himself  only  a  part  of  God's  house, 
a  servant  in  the  house,  one  of  the  people,  while  Jesus  is  the  one  who 
established  this  house  and  is  over  it.  A  house  must  be  built  or  estab- 
lished by  someone:  it  does  not  grow  of  itself.  And  the  one  who 
established  God's  house  was  Jesus.  He  is  therein  far  superior  to  Moses 
who  was  himself  only  a  member  of  the  household.  The  thought  here 
seems  to  be  somewhat  different  from  that  in  2 :  ii  where  Christ  is  closely 
associated  as  one  with  those  who  are  sanctified.  But  the  two  thoughts 
while  contrasted  are  not  contradictory.  In  3 : 3  the  thought  is,  perhaps, 
hardly  to  be  pressed  so  far  as  to  imply  that  Christ  is  conceived  by  the 
writer  as  the  actual  author  of  the  dispensation  of  the  old  covenant, 
though  this  would  not  be  out  of  accord  with  the  writer's  general  point 
of  view  which  considers  Christ  as  the  representative  of  God  in  all  things. 
The  thought  that  God  is  back  of  all  that  Christ  does  would  then  be 
emphasized  and  guarded  by  3:46  which  is  careful  to  make  God  the 
ultimate  source  of  all  things  (cf.  Ps.  127:1a).  It  is,  however,  unlikely 
that  the  author  is  here  thinking  of  the  preincarnate  Christ  as  the  builder 
of  the  Old  Testament  portion  of  the  house;  .rather,  he  is  thinking  of 
God's  house  as  one  and  Christ  its  builder  without  distinguishing  sharply 
between  old  and  new.  Again,  Jesus  is  superior  in  position  and  person 
in  relation  to  this  house,  for  while  Moses  was  but  a  servant,  Jesus  was 
Son  over  God's  house.  This  unique  relation  denoted  by  Son  must  be 
left  for  further  consideration. 

The  author  considers  Jesus,  by  virtue  of  his  dignity  as  Son,  superior 
to  all  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  This  superiority 
is  set  forth  concisely  and  yet  decisively  in  the  first  two  verses  of  the 
epistle.  In  all  these  comparisons  it  has  been  noted  that  Christ  is  superior 
because  of  his  superior  dignity  and  position  and  this  superior  dignity  and 
position  is  expressed  though  not  defined  in  the  word  Son. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  here  that,  though  no 
comparison  is  openly  expressed,  a  comparison  is  implied  between  Christ 
on  the  one  hand  and  Moses  and  Joshua  on  the  other,  in  that  while  they 
both  failed  to  lead  the  people  of  the  old  covenant  into  the  promised  rest 

^  Cf.  Philo,  De  plantat.  Noe,  sec.  16,  p.  224^4. 

365 


40  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  God  (3:16;  4:8),  Christ  is  the  one  who  succeeds  in  doing  so.  The 
comparison,  however,  is  not  so  decisive,  since  the  emphasis  is  rather 
upon  the  failure  through  the  disobedience  and  unbelief  of  the  people 
themselves  than  upon  the  failure  or  success  of  their  leaders. 

in.      CHRIST   SUPERIOR  AS  HIGH  PRIEST  AFTER  THE   ORDER  OF 
MELCHIZEDEK 

We  reach  the  heart  of  the  epistle  when  we  come  to  consider  the  main 
thesis  of  the  writer,  that  Jesus  is  superior  to  the  priests  and  more  espe- 
cially to  the  High  Priest  of  the  old  covenant.  This  is  the  main  con- 
structive portion  of  the  epistle  (4: 14 — 10: 18).  It  shows  the  superiority 
of  Christ  as  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  and  will  naturally 
include  consideration  of  him  as  Mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  as  sinless, 
and  as  Author  of  eternal  salvation. 

I.      CEDRIST  THE  MEDIATOR  OF   A  BETTER  COVENANT 

That  Jesus  as  High  Priest  of  the  new  covenant  is  superior  to  Aaron 
and  the  Levitical  priests  of  the  old  is  the  great  thesis  of  the  epistle.  That 
Jesus  is  presented  as  High  Priest  is  almost  a  unique  thesis  in  the  New 
Testament.  Paul  hints  at  the  thought  when  he  says  that  Christ 
Jesus  makes  intercession  at  the  right  hand  of  God  for  us  (Rom.  8:346), 
but  he  does  not  develop  the  idea.  The  Book  of  Revelation  has  the 
thought  of  believers  as  being  priests  unto  God,  but  not  of  Christ  as  Priest 
or  High  Priest.  In  Hebrews  the  thesis  is  worked  out  with  a  fulness  of 
detail  and  richness  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth  that  is  remarkable.  It 
is  altogether  probable  that  the  emphasis  and  detail  are  due  to  the 
influence  either  of  Alexandrianism  or  of  the  mystery-religions  or  of  both. 
It  seems  clear  from  the  epistle  itself  (4:14)  that  the  general  thesis 
formed  part  of  the  contents  of  what  was  regarded  as  a  regular  confession 
which  Christian  converts  made  and  which  the  readers,  under  the  stress 
of  opposition  and  persecution,  were  in  danger  of  breaking. 

The  writer,  however,  has  seized  upon  this  thesis  of  Jesus  as  High 
Priest  of  a  new  covenant  and  has  constructed  his  whole  theology  and 
Christian  teaching  about  it.  He  has  attempted  to  express  the  whole 
significance  of  Jesus  through  it.  In  the  Old  Testament,  he  thinks  chiefly 
of  the  ministry  of  the  High  Priest  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement.  That 
whole  system,  he  says,  God-given  though  it  was,  was  only  typical.  Its 
priesthood,  its  ministry,  and  its  law  were  imperfect.  They  failed  to 
clear  the  consciences  of  men  from  the  sense  and  burden  of  sins.  From 
the  Old  Testament  story  of  Genesis,  helped  by  touches  from  Philo  of 
Alexandria,  he  sets  forth  the  superiority  of  Jesus  as  High  Priest  under 

366 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  41 

the  strange,  weird  figure  of  Melchizedek.  Melchizedek  is  king  of 
righteousness  and  king  of  peace:  so  is  Jesus.  He  is  superior  to  the 
patriarch  Abraham  and  therefore  also  to  the  sons  of  Levi  in  that  he,  the 
greater,  gave  to  Abraham  his  priestly  blessing.  Abraham,  on  the  other 
hand,  gave  to  Melchizedek  a  tenth  of  the  spoils  he  had  taken  from  the 
kings.  The  Levites  were  mortal  men  but,  arguing  like  Philo  from  the 
silence  of  Scripture,  Melchizedek's  priesthood  had  no  beginning  and  no 
end;  so  too  with  Christ.  On  account  of  the  fact  that  he  abides  forever 
Christ  has  an  unchangeable  priesthood,  a  priesthood  that  does  not  pass 
from  him  to  another.  They  were  appointed  priests  according  to  the  law 
of  a  carnal  commandment,  i.e.,  according  to  a  law  of  physical  descent 
which  could  only  be  a  temporary  arrangement:  Jesus  was  appointed 
priest  according  to  the  power  of  an  indissoluble  life,  i.e.,  a  life  of  such 
high  moral  and  spiritual  quality  that  it  cannot  be  broken  by  death  and 
therefore  insures  a  permanent  priesthood.  And  it  is  this  that  sums  up 
his  superiority  as  High  Priest  of  the  new  covenant.  To  be  sure,  he  is 
superior  in  other  respects.  He  is  appointed  by  oath  of  God;  he  presents 
a  better  offering,  himself;  he  ministers  in  the  true  tabernacle,  in  heaven 
itself,  in  the  very  presence  of  God  (8:2)  whither  he  has  entered,  having 
passed  through  the  intermediate  heavens  (4:14),  as  forenmner  (4:16; 
6:20). 

But  the  reiterated  expression  that  reveals  his  superiority  over  the 
Levitical  high  priests  is  that  he  is  called  by  Gk)d  (5 : 5)  High  Priest  accord- 
ing to  the  order  or  rank  of  Melchizedek,  who  was  himself  superior  to  the 
Levitical  priests  in  that  being  without  father,  without  mother,  without 
genealogy  as  priest,  he  is  made  like  the  Son  of  God  and  abideth  a  priest 
forever.  It  is  the  person  of  Jesus  as  Son  of  God  and  the  fact  that  being 
such  he  abides  a  priest  forever  that  constitutes  his  superiority  over  the 
Levitical  priests.  There  is  probably  no  thought  of  distinction  in  the 
writer's  mind  between  Christ  as  Priest  and  as  High  Priest.  It  is  prob- 
ably not  necessary  here  to  go  farther  into  the  perplexities  of  chap.  7  which 
deals  with  Melchizedek  as  a  type  of  Christ.  There  is  in  it  a  strongly 
Philonian  coloring.  The  gist  of  it  for  our  purpose  is  plain,  viz.,  to  show 
how  great  this  strange  figure  of  Melchizedek  was  as  it  darted  across  the 
pathway  of  Old  Testament  history,  suddenly  rising  and  as  suddenly 
disappearing.  It  had  the  halo  of  eternity  about  it  and  shadowed  forth 
a  new  and  better  priesthood.  The  statement  of  Scripture  (Ps.  110:4) 
that  the  Messiah  was  called  by  God  High  Priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek  gives  the  proof-text  he  wishes  and  furnishes  the  writer 
solid  ground  for  transferring  this  superiority  of  Melchizedek  to  Jesus. 

367 


42  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

It  is  especially  plain  in  this  case  that  while  appearing  to  work  from  Mel- 
chizedek  as  type  toward  Christ,  the  author  is  really  working  from  Jesus 
back  to  Melchizedek  and  seeing  in  Melchizedek  largely  what  he  needs 
to  see  in  order  to  express  his  confidence  in  the  supremacy  of  Jesus.  It 
is  a  typical  piece  of  Alexandrian  exegesis. 

While  this  figure  of  Melchizedek  suggests  the  main  points  in  which 
the  superiority  of  Jesus  consists,  viz.,  his  Sonship  to  God  and  his  per- 
manency as  priest,  there  are  other  points  of  superiority  to  the  Levitical 
priests  which  it  does  not  touch.  Jesus  is  superior  to  the  Levitical  priests 
in  that  he  is  also  the  mediator  (8:6;  9:15)  and  sponsor  (7 :  22),  or  surety 
by  his  death  (9:15),  for  a  better  covenant  established  upon  better 
promises  and  having  a  more  excellent  ministry.  The  reason  given  in 
this  passage  (7 :  20  ff .)  for  the  superiority  of  the  covenant  is  the  fact  that 
this  new  covenant  is  mediated  and  guaranteed  by  a  priest  who  was 
appointed  by  oath  of  God.  But  the  new  covenant  or  law  is  superior  in 
itself  also  because  under  it  the  end  of  religion,  viz.,  the  full  forgiveness  of 
sins,  is  finally  and  forever  secured  (10:16-18).  The  new  law  is  better 
also  because  it  is  inward  and  personal.  With  keen  insight  he  seizes  upon 
the  passage  in  Jer.  31:31  £f.  that  speaks  of  a  new  dispensation  in  which 
religion  shall  be  inward  and  personal,  whereby  he  finds  in  the  Old 
Testament  itself,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  Melchizedek  (Ps.  110:4), 
support  for  his  thesis  that  there  is  to  be  a  new  and  better  covenant 
written  not  on  tables  of  stone  but  on  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart  and 
mind.  But  it  is  interesting  to  note  how  carefully  the  writer  subordinates 
the  covenant  or  law  to  the  priesthood.  With  him  it  is  axiomatic  that  a 
change  of  priesthood  automatically  necessitates  a  change  of  law.  This 
appears  in  7: 11-19.  He  has  already  shown  that  according  to  Scripture 
(Ps.  110:4)  Melchizedek  prefigures  a  new  and  different  priesthood. 
That  means  a  new  law  (vs.  12),  because  Jesus,  being  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  is,  like  Melchizedek,  of  a  different  order.  That  the  old  law 
should  be  a  failure  (vss.  11,  18),  that  Melchizedek  should  picture  a  differ- 
ent and  higher  priesthood,  that  Jesus  should  actually  come  from  the 
tribe  of  Judah — all  these  harmonize  with  and  confirm  one  another  and 
unite  in  making  clearer  (vs.  15)  the  main  point  of  the  whole  section,  viz., 
that  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the  old  law  have  both  failed  in  accom- 
plishing the  essential  and  ultimate  end  of  rehgion  and  therefore  have  given 
place  to  a  new  priesthood  and  a  new  law.  This  new  and  better  covenant 
he  identifies  with  the  full  and  final  word  of  revelation  given  by  God  in 
his  Son  (1:2)  and  spoken  first  by  the  Lord  himself  (2:3).  But  the 
efficient  virtue  of  this  new  law  or  covenant  rests  ultimately  upon  the 

368 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  43 

personnel  of  the  priesthood,  that  is,  upon  the  personal  worth  and  char- 
acter of  Jesus  who  is  at  once  mediator,  surety,  and  priest  of  this  new  and 
better  covenant.  As  Moses  and  the  angels  were  mediators  of  the  old, 
so  Jesus  is  mediator  of  the  new,  and  is  as  far  superior  to  them  as  the  new 
is  superior  to  the  old.  It  may  be  that  here  again  the  author  implicitly 
considers  Moses  priest  as  well  as  prophet,  thus  making  the  parallel  with 
Jesus  as  High  Priest  more  complete. 

2.      SINLESSNESS   OF  JESUS 

Another  part  of  Jesus'  superiority  as  High  Priest  is  indicated  in  the 
characterization  "holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separated  from  sinners 
and  made  higher  than  the  heavens"  (7:26).  The  latter  phrase  denotes 
his  superior  glory  as  having  entered  into  the  true  tabernacle,  the  inner- 
most heaven  which  is  the  abode  of  the  full  presence  of  God.  But  in  the 
rest  of  the  terms  applied  to  Jesus  as  High  Priest  in  this  passage,  we  have 
a  statement  of  his  perfect  purity  and  sinlessness.  Closely  connected 
with  this  is  the  statement  of  7:28  that  the  law  appointeth  men  high 
priests  who  have  weakness,  while  the  word  of  the  oath  of  God  appoints 
a  Son  perfected  forevermore,  i.e.,  without  weakness.  It  is  not  contra- 
dictory to  this  that  the  writer  in  another  place  (5:1-3),  while  giving  the 
necessary  qualities  of  every  high  priest,  says  that  he  is  girt  (or  encom- 
passed) with  weakness.  This  must  not  be  pressed  so  as  to  apply  to 
Jesus  as  High  Priest  in  his  exalted  state.  In  this  same  passage  the 
author  also  says  that  the  High  Priest  must  make  offering  not  for  the 
people  only  but  also  for  himself.  This  certainly  the  author  does  not 
mean  to  apply  to  Jesus  as  High  Priest,  for  he  distinctly  says  that  he 
had  no  need  to  make  offering  for  himself.  It  is  probable  that  during 
the  earthly  existence  he  considers  Christ  as  encompassed  with  weakness, 
while  in  his  exaltation,  where  he  is  considered  as  pre-eminently  High 
Priest,  he  is  perfected  and  therefore  completely  free  from  weakness.  Of 
the  rest  of  the  terms  of  7:26  "holy"  is  used  of  relationship  to  God, 
"guileless"  of  the  personal  character,  and  "undefiled"  of  freedom  from 
ceremonial  contamination  from  the  outside.  The  phrase  "separated 
from  sinners"  lies  midway  between  the  preceding  and  following  phrases. 
It  suggests,  on  the  one  hand,  the  seven-days'  separation  of  the  high- 
priest  before  the  great  Day  of  Atonement  in  order  to  avoid  ceremonial 
contamination  and,  on  the  other,  it  finds  its  complement  in  the  phrase 
"made  higher  than  the  heavens,"  which  denotes  the  place  of  supreme 
honor  and  dignity  in  the  ineffable  presence  of  God.  The  whole  passage 
carries  the  atmosphere  of  the  mystery-religions  and  emphasizes  the 


44  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

perfect  ceremonial  and  personal  purity  of  the  High  Priest  Jesus  in  his 
official  capacity  both  before  God  and  before  men.  The  most  striking 
passage  on  this  topic,  however,  refers  to  the  period  of  preparation  for 
his  High-Priestly  office,  the  earthly  period  of  temptation.  In  4:15  it 
is  said  of  him  that  he  was  "tempted  in  all  things  in  like  manner  [with 
us]  without  sin."  Here  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  more  specifically 
stated  but  it  is  spoken  of  as  an  achievement,  a  concrete  thing  rather  than 
an  abstract,  absolute  thing,  a  positive  thing  rather  than  a  negative 
thing.  For  the  meaning  of  the  author  here  evidently  is,  that  Christ 
has  the  quality  of  sympathy  because  he  has  actually  been  tempted 
in  all  things  (i.e.,  exactly  in  the  same  way)  as  we  are  tempted.  But  he 
was  victorious  in  all  his  temptations  and  therefore  sinless.  This  sinless- 
ness was  an  acquirement  rather  than  an  endowment. 

3.      JESUS  AS  AUTHOR  OF  ETERNAL  SALVATION 

There  is  still  another  phase  of  his  High-Priestly  work  which,  in  the 
presentation  of  the  writer,  sets  forth  the  exalted  superiority  of  Jesus.  It 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  characteristic  phrase  of  the  writer  that  Jesus 
is  the  cause  or  author  of  eternal  salvation  (5:9).  This  salvation  is 
conceived  by  the  author  as  primarily  future  (9:28).  The  whole  epistle 
is  written  upon  the  view  that  the  realization  of  their  hopes  lies  in  the 
future,  in  that  time  when  Christ  shall  come  again  and  usher  in  that  rest 
of  God  which  God  has  been  waiting  to  share  with  his  people  since  the 
finishing  of  creation  (4:8  ff.).  Then  all  enemies  shall  have  been  subdued 
beneath  his  feet  and  for  his  followers  anticipation  shall  have  passed  into 
realization.  Meanwhile  they  must  hope,  believe,  endure,  struggle,  and 
hold  fast  their  confession,  since  he  is  faithful  that  promised  (6:12; 
6:13  ff.;  10:23),  and  their  time  for  waiting  is  not  long  (10:37) — the 
ancient  heroes  have  had  to  wait  much  longer  (11 :4o).  But  this  feature 
of  the  author's  presentation  may  easily  be  overemphasized  at  the  expense 
of  the  elements  of  salvation  that  are  realized  during  the  earthly  career  of 
the  believer.  It  is  an  error  easy  to  make  if  one  holds  the  author  of 
Hebrews  strictly  to  his  somewhat  fantastic  intellectual  scheme  of  things. 
But  one  must  recognize  that  such  a  writer  breaks  through  his  own  frame- 
work. The  old  bottles  will  not  hold  the  new  wine.  There  are  many 
clear  indications  that  while  the  picture  the  writer  presents  is  that  of 
persons  waiting  sick  at  heart  for  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise  that  seems 
to  fail  them,  like  watchmen  in  the  night  waiting  for  the  day  that  never 
seems  to  dawn,  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  blessings  of  that  day  of  realization 
are  continually  breaking  in  upon  the  darkness  of  their  faith.    Realization 

370 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  45 

is  not  wholly  in  the  future.  This  will  appear  more  fully  after  presenting 
the  writer's  conception  of  eternal  salvation. 

As  already  noted,  the  writer  says  that  Jesus  himself  began  the  procla- 
mation of  this  great  salvation  (2:3).  The  word  of  this  higher  revelation 
was  a  word  of  salvation  in  contrast  with  the  word  of  the  old  dispensation. 
The  mediators  of  the  old  were  Moses  and  the  angels,  but  the  mediator 
of  the  new  was  a  Son,  Jesus.  Therefore  is  this  salvation  so  great  as  to 
be  final  and  authoritative.  The  writer  does  not  here  reveal  precisely  in 
what  he  considered  this  salvation  first  proclaimed  by  the  Lord  to  consist. 
The  words  of  2:4  exhibit  the  condition  of  the  early  Christian  church 
with  considerable  verisimilitude  when  compared  with  the  introductory 
chapters  of  Acts.  It  is  likely  that  the  writer  considered  himself  to  be 
in  essential  harmony  with  the  primitive  church  in  his  conception  of  this 
salvation.  It  consisted  of  the  proclamation  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
the  Messiah,  that  his  death,  resurrection,  and  exaltation  at  God's  right 
hand  brought  the  boon  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  him.  The 
promise  of  his  return  to  inaugurate  the  kingdom  of  God  and  restore  all 
things  was  added.  The  author  was  probably  not  conscious  to  himself 
of  having  advanced  upon  this  primitive  message  or  of  having  altered  it 
in  any  way.  He  cast  the  common  message  into  his  own  peculiar  intel- 
lectual mold  for  the  purpose  of  interpretation,  exhortation,  and  enforce- 
ment. But  to  be  more  certain  of  his  conception  it  is  necessary  to  go  to 
his  own  full  and  characteristic  elucidation  of  this  eternal  salvation. 

To  begin  with,  the  great  lines  on  which  he  constructs  his  framework, 
viz.,  covenant,  priesthood,  sacrifice,  etc.,  demand  and  secure  a  unique 
and  supreme  emphasis  upon  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  purpose  of  his 
humiliation  in  comparison  with  the  angels,  and  of  his  sharing  in  flesh 
and  blood  like  his  brethren,  was  just  that  he  might  undergo  the  experi- 
ence of  death  on  their  behalf  (2: 14,  possibly  2:9),  thus  delivering  them 
from  the  fear  of  death.  How  Jesus'  death  could  accomplish  this  the 
writer  shows  more  clearly  in  10: 5  ff.,  where  he  states  that  Jesus'  death  is 
a  sacrifice  cheerfully  undertaken  by  him  in  accordance  with  the  will  of 
God  because  of  the  evident  ineffectiveness  of  the  sacrifices  under  the  old 
covenant  (10:1-4).  "Ineffectiveness"  is  perhaps  too  mild  a  word  to 
use,  as  the  author  seems  to  mingle  with  his  statements  here  a  slight 
touch  of  quiet  scorn.  But  the  death  of  Jesus  is  by  no  means  ineffective. 
It  is  the  one  final  sacrifice  of  the  superior  new  covenant,  while  those  of 
the  old  covenant  were  many  and  continually  repeated.  It  is  emphasized 
in  various  solemn  and  emphatic  words  (9: 26;  10: 12).  It  is  the  sacrifice 
of  himself,  a  strikingly  new  thing  (9:14),  an  offering  that  is  faultless 

371 


46  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

(9:14).  Since  his  death  is  sacrificial,  it  secures  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
fully  and  finally — at  least  to  those  who  add  on  their  part  all  diligence 
(10: 18).  How  precisely  it  does  this  or  could  do  this  the  writer  does  not 
attempt  to  say  simply  because  neither  he  nor  his  readers  had  any  thought 
of  going  behind  the  cardinal  conception  of  their  day,  viz.,  that  without 
shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins  (9:22).  This  death  of 
Jesus  in  its  relation  to  sins  is  probably  conceived  as  timeless.  At  least 
it  is  retroactive  in  its  efficacy,  opening  up  the  promised  eternal  inheritance 
by  the  removing  of  the  sins  committed  under  the  old  covenant  (9:15). 
It  is  probable  also  that  the  writer  conceives  the  virtue  of  this  sacrificial 
death  of  Jesus  to  extend  to  sins  of  the  future  as  of  the  past,  though  he 
says  nothing  definitely  about  it.  It  is  true  that  he  has  a  strange  reserva- 
tion in  regard  to  wilful  sins,  but  it  is  hardly  fair  to  his  presentation  to 
maintain  as  some  have  done  that  it  has  no  provision  for  any  sins  com- 
mitted after  enlightenment  or  conversion,  and  that  from  this  arises  his 
stern  and  somber  view  of  God  as  the  consuming  fire  and  terrible  judge. 
Without  minimizing  the  latter  fact,  it  is  however  more  likely  that  he 
conceived  the  sacrificial  death  of  Jesus  as  timeless  in  its  efficacy  availing 
for  sins  past,  present,  and  future.  And  it  must  further  be  said  that  the 
writer  does  not  conceive  of  this  purification  of  sins  made  by  the  sacrificial 
death  of  Jesus  (1:3)  as  an  external,  mechanical,  forensic  thing.  It  does 
not  in  the  least  degree  release  the  believer  from  the  intense  exercise  of  all 
the  virtues  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  not  a  mere  ceremonial  thing  like 
the  old  sacrifices  (9:13),  but  reaches  to  the  inmost  being,  cleansing  the 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  a  living  God  (9:14).  It  purifies 
and  sanctifies  (9:23;  10:2;  10:10;  13:12).  Doubtless  these  words 
originally  and  generally  in  Scripture,  and  in  this  epistle,  have  a  static, 
aoristic  sense;  but  historic  development,  the  general  atmosphere  of  the 
epistle,  and  in  particular  such  a  passage  as  12:10,  indicate  that  in 
addition  they  possess  in  Hebrews  a  strong  ethical  and  spiritual  coloring. 
Entrance  by  faith  into  the  true  holy  place  of  God's  real  presence  is  gained 
through  this  sacrificial  death  of  Jesus  (10:19,  20).  We  must  not  mini- 
mize the  moral  and  spiritual  strength  of  this  thought  simply  because  God 
is  conceived  as  inhabiting  a  local  dwelling-place.  If  to  the  sacrificial 
death  of  Jesus  we  add  its  sequel,  the  resurrection  and  exaltation,  we  shall 
arrive  at  the  full  import  of  the  phrase  "eternal  salvation"  as  the  end  of 
the  High-Priesthood  of  Jesus.  The  word  ''eternal,"  as  used  in  this 
epistle,  is  qualitative  as  well  as  temporal  in  its  content.  It  implies  a 
bringing  into  full  covenant  relation  with  God  so  that  there  shall  be 
harmony  and  free,  glad  intercourse,  that  the  people  shall  be  God*s 

372 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  47 

people  and  God  shall  be  their  God  (8:io).  And  though  the  idea  of  a 
covenant  people  is  always  prominent  with  this  writer  he,  of  course, 
thinks  also  of  the  individual  and  his  relation  to  God.  Jesus  as  exalted 
High  Priest  is  able  to  save  completely,  that  is,  not  only  eternally  but 
perfectly,  those  who  come  unto  God  through  him  (7:25).  And  this 
complete  salvation  finds  its  perfection  in  that  full  realization  of  the 
covenant  relation  which  is  described  as  the  eternal  inheritance  (9:15), 
the  sabbatismos  of  the  people  of  God.  This,  however,  is  to  be  realized 
only  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ  when  a  new  order  shall  prevail  and 
the  world  of  eternal  and  spiritual  realities  shall  be  fully  revealed. 

In  the  view  of  the  epistle,  then,  the  whole  of  this  imposing  structure 
rests  upon  the  one  central  essential  point  of  Jesus'  sacrificial  death  as  the 
necessary  death  of  the  testator  of  the  new  covenant  (9:16).  The 
writer  was  not  at  all  concerned  to  question  the  logical  or  theological 
necessity  of  this  death,  nor  to  wonder  how  such  virtue  could  reasonably 
and  consistently  be  attached  to  it.  That  is  a  modern  question.  With 
the  writer  the  necessity  was  wholly  religious  and  practical ;  in  this,  as  in 
many  other  features  of  the  epistle,  we  have  evidence  that  not  philosophy 
or  theory  but  experience  is  fundamental.  If,  however,  the  author  were 
asked  the  question  he  would  reply,  as  indeed  he  actually  does  declare  in 
the  epistle,  that  the  reason  Jesus'  death  does  have  such  large  results 
religiously  and  ethically  is  that  it  is  the  death  of  one  who  is  appointed 
of  God  to  be  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek — that  is,  one 
whose  personal  inner  nature,  worth,  and  position  as  Son  of  God  were  such 
that  his  death  could  have  these  results  (5:5,  6).  He  was  the  spotless 
High  Priest  (9:14)  who  needed  not  to  make  any  offering  for  himself 
but  offered  himself  through  eternal  spirit  to  God  (9:14).  This  latter 
probably  means  that  while  the  sacrifices  of  the  old  covenant  were  only 
fleshly  or  physical  (9:13),  performed  by  a  priest  appointed  by  physical 
descent  (7:16),  Jesus'  sacrifice  moved  in  the  realm  of  the  spiritual,  was 
voluntary,  perfect,  and  therefore  eternal  (7 :  16), and  spiritual  in  its  effects. 
In  a  word,  the  significance  of  Jesus'  death  in  the  thought  of  the  writer 
depends  directly  upon  the  nature  and  worth  of  his  person.  By  his 
entrance  into  the  heavenly  and  true  holy  place  and  his  unchangeable 
priesthood  (7:24),  upon  the  basis  of  his  sacrificial  death,  he  has  secured 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  continued  sanctification  and  ultimate  per- 
fection of  his  people.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  what  really  fills  the 
writer's  vision  and  constitutes  the  sum  of  his  thought  is  the  continued 
activity  of  Jesus  as  exalted  High  Priest.  The  actual  death  is  but  one 
event,  yet  it  is  original  and  fundamental. 

373 


48  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Although  the  author  uses  the  framework  of  the  old  covenant  as  the 
vehicle  of  his  thought,  he  clearly  has  no  superficial,  merely  ceremonial 
conception  of  sin  and  salvation.  He  has  the  original  ceremonial  meaning 
of  the  terms  "holiness,"  " sanctification,"  "purification,"  and  "perfec- 
tion," yet  it  is  evident  from  the  general  tone  of  the  writing  that  these 
words  carry  a  weight  which  their  original  meanings  will  not  bear.  In  a 
large  degree  religion  has  become  ethical,  so  that  there  is  a  deeply  moral 
and  religious  meaning  in  these  terms  and  in  the  whole  content  of  the 
salvation  provided  by  the  new  covenant.  This  is  expressed  in  the 
writer's  scheme  by  saying  that  the  old  covenant  is  merely  type  while 
the  new  is  the  reality,  the  old  is  shadow  while  the  new  is  sub- 
stance. But  the  writer  in  many  other  ways  reveals  the  strongly 
ethical  tone  of  his  system.  He  insists  continually,  sternly,  almost 
monotonously  upon  the  absolute  necessity  of  perseverance  and 
obedience.  With  him  unbelief  is  equivalent  to  disobedience  (cf.  3:12 
with  4:6).  Even  Jesus  himself  learned  obedience  through  that  which 
he  suffered  (5:8).  The  perfect  among  believers  are  those,  who,  by  reason 
of  use  or  habit,  have  their  senses  trained  to  distinguish  between  good 
and  bad  (5: 14).  The  thought  as  well  as  the  words  here  reveal  a  strain 
of  the  Stoic  philosopher  with  his  emphasis  on  morals.  This  obedience, 
indeed,  is  to  a  new  law  (7:12;  8:6) — a  law  that  is  inward,  personal,  and 
universal  (8: 10  ff.).  And  the  high  character  of  this  obedience  is  shown 
very  clearly  in  the  Doxology  (13:20).  It  is  pursuing  of  the  good  in 
accordance  with  the  will  of  God  as  Jesus  himself  did  (10: 5).  It  is  not  a 
merely  human  and  natural  pursuit  but  is  aided  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
leadership  and  example  of  Jesus  (12: 2),  by  the  impartation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (6:4),  and  by  the  whole  High-Priestly  activity  and  sympathy  of 
Jesus  (2:18;  5:9).  This  obedience  avoids  the  legalism  of  Pharisaic 
Judaism  on  the  one  hand  and  the  mystical  element  of  Paulinism  on  the 
other.    It  is  more  lofty  than  the  one  and  more  humble  than  the  other. 

It  is  held  by  many'  that  the  eternal  salvation  thus  gained  is  an 
entirely  future  thing.  This  again,  is  putting  a  greater  burden  on  the 
writer's  philosophical  world-view  than  it  should  be  expected  to  bear. 
Even  if  it  be  true  (which  can  hardly  be  granted)  that  the  word  "salva- 
tion" whenever  used  always  refers  to  the  perfected  believer  in  the  future 
perfect  state,  the  consummated  rest  of  God,  it  would  still  not  necessarily 
follow  that  nothing  of  what  we  today  call  salvation  was  realized  by  the 
believers  of  the  epistle  during  their  earthly  life.  It  depends  on  how  much 
we  include  in  the  writer's  term  "salvation."    We  may,  if  we  wish,  force 

^  Scott,  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  202;  McGiSert,  Apostolic  Age,  p.  473. 

374 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  49 

the  word  into  the  narrow  limits  of  the  perfected  final  state.  But  there 
still  remains  much  in  the  epistle  which  Jesus  does  for  believers  during 
their  earthly  life.  It  is  unnatural  to  interpret  otherwise  such  passages 
as  2:10;  2:14-18;  4:16;  7:25;  12:28,  and  especially  13:20,  21.  The 
context  and  the  present  tenses  used,  demand  a  reference  to  present 
benefits.  Whether  these  benefits  are  included  by  the  writer  in  his  word 
** salvation"  or  not  is,  in  any  case,  largely  a  matter  of  words  not  of 
reality.  The  benefits  are  clearly  such  as  are  necessary  to  the  realization 
of  the  covenant  relation,  viz.,  the  relation  of  harmony  and  communion 
with  God.  It  is  much  more  natural,  therefore,  to  say  that  by  the  term 
"  salvation,"  the  writer  denotes  all  the  benefits  received  under  the  inspira- 
tion or  by  the  help  of  Jesus,  which  benefits  are  necessary  to  the  realization 
of  the  new  covenant  relation,  viz.,  entrance  into  and  full  enjoyment 
of  the  presence  of  God.  This  is  partially  realized  before,  and  fully 
realized  only  after,  the  parousia  of  Christ  (9:28).  Delitzsch's  words 
on  7:25  are  pertinent  here: 

This  all-embracing  salvation  is  vouchsafed  to  those  who  through  him 
approach  to  God,  that  is,  those  who  in  faith  make  use  of  the  way  of  access 
which  he  has  opened,  and  which  remains  open  to  him;  nay  more,  this  very 
access  to  free  and  joyous  communion  with  God,  made  by  the  removal  of 
the  barrier  of  sin,  is  in  itself  the  all-including  commencement  of  that  perfect 
''salvation." 

Thus  the  author  of  the  Hebrews  emphasizes  the  future  and  passes 
lightly  over  the  present,  while  we  emphasize  the  present  and  pass  lightly 
over  the  future.  The  important  thing  to  notice  here  is  that  this  salvation 
whether  in  its  partial  realization  in  the  present  or  in  its  completed 
realization  in  the  future  is  mediated  through  Jesus  and  is  what  it  is 
because  of  what  he  is  and  does.  He  is  the  cause  of  this  eternal  salvation, 
being  himself  eternal. 

IV.      CHRIST  AS  ETERNAL 
I.      COSMIC  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   CHRIST 

It  will  be  well  to  consider  first  the  writer's  conception  of  the  cosmic 
significance  of  Christ.  It  is  through  him  that  God  has  made  the  ages, 
that  is,  the  world  (1:2).  This  great  thought,  distinct  though  it  is,  is 
neither  emphasized  nor  amplified  in  the  epistle.  Elsewhere  the  writer 
attributes  the  work  of  creation  directly  to  God  as  both  the  final  and 
efficient  cause  (2:10).  In  another  passage  this  work  is  attributed  to 
the  word  of  God  (11:3).  This  contrast  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  a 
contradiction  within  the  thought  of  the  writer.  It  is  rather  to  be 
considered  as  another  of  many  indications  in  the  epistle  (cf.  3:46)  that 

375 


50  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

God  is  supreme  in  the  writer's  thought.  This  thought  of  Christ  as 
agent  of  creation  under  God  is  more  emphatic  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
(1:2,  3)  and  in  Colossians  (1:16)  than  in  Hebrews.  It  is  pre-Gnostic 
and  with  the  author  of  Hebrews  probably  Philonian  in  origin.  Its 
importance  here  is  that  it  expresses  the  author's  belief  in  the  pre- 
incarnate  activity  of  Christ. 

But  not  only  did  God  make  the  world  through  Christ;  he  also  made 
him  heir  of  all  things  (1:2).  The  same  thought  is  to  be  inferred  from 
2:8,  9  and  from  1:13.  But  while  these  passages  indicate  something 
received  as  an  inheritance,  something  occurring  progressively  in  time, 
the  middle  portion  of  i :  3  indicates  an  activity  at  least  coextensive  with 
the  universe  itself,  since  the  Son  bears  all  things  by  the  word  of  God's 
power.  Here  again  the  clearness  with  which  this  cosmic  activity  of 
the  Son  is  subordinated  to  that  of  God  is  noteworthy  as  compared  with 
a  closely  parallel  passage  in  Colossians  (i :  17&). 

But  it  is  in  contrast  with  this  cosmic  activity  of  the  Son  that  his 
eternal  significance  is  first  manifested  clearly  (1:10-12).  This  is  done, 
indeed,  by  use  of  a  quotation  from  Ps.  102  which  the  author  applies 
directly  and  confidently  to  Jesus  as  Messiah.  That  the  original  referred 
to  God  himself  is  of  no  significance  here  since  the  object  is  the  thought 
of  the  writer  on  the  topic  considered.  The  earth  and  the  heavens,  it  is 
true,  are  the  work  of  the  Christ  as  Son  and  Messiah.  But  they  are 
temporary  and  fleeting.  Like  garments  they  shall  become  old  and 
threadbare  and  so  shall  be  changed  for  new  ones  (i :  11,  12).  They  shall 
perish,  but  the  Son  abides  the  same  with  no  aging  with  the  lapse  of 
years  (vs.  126).  The  angels  pass  at  the  will  of  God  into  winds  or  flames 
(1:7),  but  the  Son's  throne  is  forever  (1:8).  Thus  over  against  the 
universe  which  the  author,  with  the  common  thought  of  his  time,  con- 
ceives to  be  fleeting  and  changeable,  the  eternity  of  the  Son  is  set  forth. 

The  eternity  of  Christ  is  also  emphasized  in  connection  with  the 
eternal  salvation  which  he  provides.  He  is  the  Son  perfected  forever 
(7 :  28).  He  is  able  to  save  completely  since  he  lives  forever  (7 :  25),  and 
thus  in  contrast  with  the  priests  of  the  old  dispensation  has  a  priesthood 
that  does  not  pass  to  another  (7:24).  By  his  offering  through  eternal 
spirit  (9:14),  he  has  obtained  eternal  redemption  (9:126),  has  secured 
to  believers  the  promise  of  an  eternal  inheritance  (9:156). 

2.      RELATION  OF  CHRIST  TO  MEN 

Of  Christ's  relation  to  men  in  general  this  epistle  has  little  to  say 
directly,  but  there  are  some  significant  hints.    The  author  thinks  of 

376 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  51 

what  we  call  conversion  as  occurring  at  a  definite  time  and  speaks  of  it,  as 
do  the  mystery-religions,  as  an  enlightenment  (6:4)  and  as  becoming 
partners  with  Christ  (3:14).  Although  in  both  of  the  above  passages 
the  danger  and  possibility  of  falling  away  is  strongly  emphasized,  still 
conversion,  in  the  view  of  the  writer,  divides  men  into  two  distinct 
classes.  Naturally  what  the  writer  has  to  say  regarding  Christ's  relation 
to  men  concerns  his  relation  to  believers  chiefly.  Yet  he  says  that  he 
tasted  death  for  everyone  (2:9),  that  he  lays  hold  not  of  angels  but  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham  (2:16).  In  this  latter  passage  the  context  shows 
that  the  seed  of  Abraham  denotes  human  nature  as  such  in  contrast  with 
the  spirit  nature  of  angels.  The  author  does  not  say  seed  of  Adam,  as 
we  might  expect,  because  along  with  his  idea  of  human  nature  as  such 
he  has  strongly  in  mind  here,  as  everywhere,  the  thought  of  salvation, 
and  the  inheritors  of  this  salvation  are  not  human  beings  as  such  but 
just  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  the  figurative  or  spiritual  sense  of  the  term, 
the  true  Israel.  The  point  that  is  pertinent  here,  however,  is  that  this 
language  concerning  Christ's  relation  to  men  implies  pre-existence  as 
did  also  the  author's  language  regarding  Christ's  relation  to  the  world, 
his  cosmic  significance.  This  thought  of  pre-existence  in  relation  to  men 
stands  out  still  more  clearly  in  the  author's  statement  as  to  Christ's 
relation  to  Melchizedek  (7:3),  viz.,  that  Melchizedek  was  made  like  to 
the  Son  of  God  in  being  without  father,  without  mother,  without 
genealogy,  without  beginning  of  days,  and  without  end  of  life.  This 
statement  is  the  more  striking  as  it  reverses  the  thought  of  the  context 
in  which  Melchizedek  is  presented  as  the  type  of  Christ.  Pre-existence 
is  not  a  necessary  inference  from  this  phrase,  but  it  is  the  natural  one 
in  the  light  of  the  epistle  as  a  whole.  The  same  thought  of  pre-existence 
is  clearer  in  the  passage  2 :  11-14;  also  more  fully  in  10: 5-10. 

In  the  consideration  of  Christ  as  eternal,  thus  far,  it  has  become  plain 
that  the  writer  holds  clearly  and  emphatically  to  what  might  be  called 
the  future  eternity  of  Christ.  There  has  been  considerable  evidence  also 
pointing  to  his  pre-existence.  But  the  writer  has  not  been  so  clear  and 
emphatic  on  what  may  be  called  the  past  eternity  of  Christ.  Evidence 
for  the  writer's  view  on  this  point  will  fall  more  naturally  under  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  God. 

3.      RELATION  OF  CHRIST  TO   GOD 

a)  Conception  of  God. — ^The  conception  of  God  found  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  is  a  lofty  one.  There  is  a  somber  element  in  the  character 
of  God  in  Hebrews  that  does  not  a:ppear  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 

377 


52  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

writings.  There  is  but  one  God.  The  God  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
God  of  the  New  (i :  i).  There  is  thus  unity  in  the  universe  and  unity  in 
revelation.  But  the  God  of  the  old  dispensation  revealed  himself  in 
ways  more  terrible  than  those  of  the  new  (12:18-24).  Yet  ultimately 
he  is  the  same  terrible  God  whose  gracious  (2:9)  and  persistent  (1:1) 
efforts  to  reach  and  save  men  can  be  neglected  only  with  terrible  peril 
(12:25-29).  Neglect  of  his  supreme  revelation  in  Jesus,  his  Son,  can 
only  bring  the  greater  condemnation  (2:3).  This  thought,  to  be  sure,  is 
one  common  to  New  Testament  writers,  but  it  is  emphasized  in  Hebrews 
in  a  way  that  is  repellent  to  modern  views  (6:4-8).  It  springs  from  the 
author's  whole  conception  of  life  as  well  as  from  his  conception  of  God. 
His  view  of  life  as  a  whole  is  somber  and  stern.  This  element  in  the 
writer's  conception  of  God  and  life  many  commentators  have  tried  to 
minimize  by  forced  interpretations  of  such  passages  as  6:4-8.  But  we 
need  to  recognize  this  stern  and  somber  element  and  accept  it  as  inhering 
in  the  writer's  view  of  God  and  life.  It  may,  indeed,  be  said  that  this 
stern  and  somber  element  does  not  belong  to  the  writer's  conception 
positively  but  only  negatively.  It  is  called  forth  only  by  man's  care- 
lessness and  wicked  rejection  of  light  and  truth. 

This  conception  is  fundamentally  the  Hebrew  conception,  touched 
however  with  the  Greek  (Platonic  and  Philonian)  idea  of  the  remoteness 
of  God.  God  is  difficult  of  access  for  men  and  yet  access  to  God  is  the 
true  ideal,  the  very  thing  that  in  the  writer's  view  constitutes  salvation. 
God  spake  to  the  fathers  of  old  in  the  prophets,  but  now  in  a  Son,  who 
is  become  the  sole  and  sufficient  mediator  and  means  of  true  access  to 
God.  God  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  the  living  God  (3:12;  9:14; 
10:31;  12:22).  This  expression  denotes  God  as  ever  living  and  there- 
fore watchful  against  wickedness  and  powerful  to  punish.  It  is  a  terrible 
thing  to  fall  injto  his  hands.  God  is  judge  and  vengeance  and  punish- 
ment belong  to  him  (4:12;  10:30).  He  is  a  consuming  fire  (12:29). 
He  is  the  invisible  one  whom  faith  must  realize  (11:6;  11:27). 

But  God  as  judge,  avenger,  and  consimiing  fire  is  terrible  only  to  the 
unrighteous.  He  is  holy,  and  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord  (12:14).  But  he  is  also  the  God  of  his  covenant  people  (9 :  20)  and 
is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God,  having  prepared  for  them  a  city 
(11:166).  He  received  Abel's  gifts,  translated  Enoch,  richly  rewarded 
faithfulness  and  righteousness  in  the  past,  and  has  provided  still  better 
things  for  his  people  of  the  present  than  for  those  of  the  past  (11:40). 
His  very  chastening  is  out  of  love  and  with  the  purpose  of  imparting 
holiness  (12: 10).    The  readers'  ministrations  to  the  saints  are  reckoned 

378 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  53 

as  done  to  himself  and  will  not  be  forgotten  (6:  lo).  Their  services  and 
sacrifices  are  well-pleasing  to  him  (13:16).  In  the  general  sense  God 
is  father  of  all  spirits  (12:9)  but  he  is  specially  gracious  to  his  covenant 
people. 

In  relation  to  the  universe  God  is  its  creator.  This  primary  postulate 
is  given  to  us  by  faith  (11:3).  The  meaning  of  this  verse  is  much- 
disputed,  but  the  natural  interpretation  is  gained  by  falling  back  upon  the 
Philonian  views  of  the  writer.  The  reference  then,  in  /a^  iK  <f>aivofiivo>v, 
is  not  to  primitive  chaotic  matter,  the  v\rj  of  Plato  and  the  Greek 
philosophers  in  general,  but  to  the  archetypal  ideas  which  in  creation 
are  embodied  in  visible  form.  That  this  is  not  doing  violence  to  the 
writer  can  be  seen  from  a  comparison  with  8:5.  Creation  is  the  divine 
act  analogous  to  the  task  assigned  to  Moses  in  the  making  of  the  taber- 
nacle. Creation  is  directly  attributed  to  God  in  another  phrase  which  is 
frequent  in  Plato  and  Philo ;  God  is  the  final  and  efficient  cause  of  all 
things  (2:10).  In  a  miniature  parable  (6:7,  8)  God  is  represented  as 
blessing  or  rejecting  the  earth  according  as  it  is  either  fertile  or  barren 
for  men. 

Indeed,  God  is  over  all  and  back  of  all  and  in  all.  The  works  of 
power  in  the  Apostolic  age  were  according  to  his  will  (2:4).  He  it  is 
who  is  bringing  many  sons  to  glory  (2 :  10).  He  is  the  God  of  peace  who 
raised  the  Lord  Jesus  from  the  dead  (13:20).  The  movements  of  Nature 
are  the  expression  of  his  will.  His  voice  shook  the  earth  at  Sinai  and  his 
voice  shall  shake  both  earth  and  heaven  at  the  great  metathesis  when 
the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  fully  and  finally  established  (12:26-29). 
God  is  the  ultimate  and  efficient  mover  of  all  things  (3:4^). 

b)  God's  attitude  to  Jesus. — It  is  evident  even  from  a  cursory  reading 
of  the  epistle  that  while  God  is  supreme,  Jesus  stands  in  a  unique  relation 
to  him.  God's  attitude  to  Jesus  is  expressed  in  a  number  of  statements. 
In  the  comparison  with  the  angels  God  is  represented  as  saying  that  all 
the  angels  must  worship  Jesus  when  God  again  brings  him  into  the 
inhabited  earth  (1:6).  In  i  :8a  either  God  is  said  to  be  the  throne  of 
Jesus,  the  Son,  or  the  Son  is  himself  addressed  as  God.  In  i :  13  God 
bids  Jesus  to  sit  at  his  right  hand  till  he  puts  the  enemies  of 
Jesus  beneath  his  feet.  In  10:13  Jesus  is  represented  as  taking  this 
exalted  position  and  waiting  till  the  promised  subjection  of  his  enemies 
should  be  fulfilled  to  him  by  God.  Von  Soden  is  right  in  reminding  us 
that  we  have  here  only  quotations  which  have  been  warped  from  their 
original  meaning  by  rabbinical  exegesis,  but  he  is  mistaken  in  thinking 
that  for  that  reason  they  are  of  no  service  in  determining  the  Christology 

379 


54  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  the  author  himself.  The  fact  that  the  author  uses  such  quotations 
is  of  significance,  though  they  are  not  to  be  interpreted  as  if  they  were 
his  own  writing.  In  i:gb  God  is  spoken  of  as  anointing  Jesus  above 
his  fellows,  the  angels,  and  he  is  there  spoken  of  as  the  God  of  Jesus 
("God,  thy  God").  As  God  exalted  Jesus  above  the  angels,  so  he 
humbled  him  for  a  time  beneath  the  angels  (2:9),  and  this  is  the  act  of 
God  who  is  the  prime  mover  in  the  matter  of  the  salvation  of  men  (2 :  10). 
It  is  God  who  perfects  Jesus  through  suffering  (2:10),  as  he  perfects 
through  chastening  and  suffering  all  the  sons  whom  he  receives  (12 : 6  ff.). 
It  is  God  who  glorifies  Christ  by  making  him  High  Priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek.  Christ  did  not  take  this  honor  to  himself  (5:5-10). 
It  is  God  who  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  (13:20).  God  prepared  a 
body  for  Jesus  (10:5). 

c)  Jesus^  attittide  to  God. — The  converse  of  this  is  Jesus'  attitude  or 
relation  to  God.  As  already  shown,  he  is  represented  in  the  attitude 
of  a  devout  and  humble  man  praying  to  God  with  strong  crying  and 
tears  and  as  being  heard  because  of  his  piety  (5:75.).  His  sacrifice 
is  voluntary:  he  offered  himself  to  God  blameless  (9:14).  Perceiving 
the  fruitlessness  of  sacrifices,  offerings,  and  holocausts  in  reference  to 
sin,  which  are  offered  according  to  the  law,  perceiving  also  that  they  are 
neither  desired  by  God  nor  acceptable  to  him,  he,  that  is,  Jesus  Christ 
said,  "Behold  I  am  come,  in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  to  do 
Thy  will  O  God"  (10: 7).  The  writer  then  repeats  the  quotation,  separat- 
ing the  two  parts  in  order  to  emphasize  the  close  logical  relation  between 
them.  To  the  first  part  of  the  quotation  he  adds  the  expression,  "such 
as  are  offered  according  to  the  law,"  to  indicate  that  it  is  not  against 
sacrifices  as  such  that  he  speaks  but  against  the  formal  and  ineffective 
sacrifices  enjoined  by  the  law.  So  too  the  will  of  God  here  spoken  of  is 
not  the  will  of  God  ethically  conceived,  relating  to  life  and  conduct  only 
and  requiring  no  sacrifice  of  any  kind.  There  was  probably  more  of  this 
latter  thought  in  the  Old  Testament  passages  themselves  than  in  the 
quotations  as  the  author  of  Hebrews  understood  and  used  them.  At  any 
rate  it  is  clear,  both  from  the  immediate  context  and  from  the  general 
view  of  the  writer  as  seen  in  the  rest  of  the  book,  that  what  is  here  meant 
is  not  the  will  of  God  conceived  in  somewhat  modern  fashion  as  the 
ethical  standard  of  life  and  conduct,  but  the  will  of  God  in  relation  to  a 
concrete  situation,  viz.,  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  the  sanctification  and 
perfecting  of  men.  For  this  purpose  the  sacrifices  which  were  according 
to  the  law  were  of  no  avail — could  be  of  no  avail.  For  the  blood  of 
beasts  could  never  take  away  sin.     But  it  was  far  different  with  the 

380 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  55 

sacrifice  of  such  a  one  as  Jesus  Christ  who  offered  himself  blameless  to 
God  (9:14).  Such  a  sacrifice  could  purge  away  sin  (1:3),  cleanse  the 
conscience  (9:146),  and  sanctify  finally  (10:10).  The  writer  represents 
the  preincarnate  Christ  as  realizing  this  and  accepting  the  challenge 
which  the  possibility  offered.  Christ  disregards  and  sets  aside  the  sacri- 
fices according  to  the  law  that  he  may  establish  the  will  of  God;  10: 10 
shows  that  this  will  of  God  means  the  sanctification  of  men  by  the  offer- 
ing of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  body  which  God  had  prepared  for  him 
(10:5).  This  passage,  then,  is  an  approach  in  thought  to  the  famous 
passage  of  Paul  in  Philippians  (2 : 6-9) .  In  the  author's  view  it  is  decisive 
for  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.  It  expresses  also  Christ's  voluntary 
obedience  to  God,  not  however,  in  general,  but  as  directed  along  the 
single  line  of  securing  the  salvation  of  men  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself. 

Christ's  attitude  to  God  is,  further,  one  of  faith  like  that  of  his 
brethren  (2:13;  11:6).  Christ  is  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
mediator  of  the  new  covenant  (8:6;  9:15;  12:24).  He  is  appointed  on 
behalf  of  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God  (5:1). 

The  consideration  of  God,  and  Jesus'  relation  to  God,  thus  far 
carried  out  has  yielded  material  on  Jesus'  oflScial  relation  to  God  rather 
than  on  his  essential  relation  to  God.  The  writer  fully  reveals  both 
expressly  and  incidentally,  that  God  is  supreme,  while  Christ,  superior 
though  he  is  to  angels,  prophets,  and  priests,  is  distinctly  subordinate  to 
God.  This  supremacy  of  God  and  subordination  of  Christ  is  more 
distinct  and  continuous  in  Hebrews  than  in  any  other  writing  of  the 
New  Testament.  At  the  same  time  this  subordination  is  not  in  any 
degree  pictured  as  one  derogatory  to  Christ.  In  his  human  relation  to 
God  as  man,  in  his  ofl&cial  relations  as  agent  of  creation,  as  captain  of 
salvation,  as  mediator  of  the  new  covenant  and  High  Priest,  in  all  these 
Christ  is  subordinate  to  God.  So  too  in  the  future  age  of  perfect  realiza- 
tion. The  angels  are  to  worship  Christ,  but  it  is  God  that  bids  them 
do  so  (1:6).  Christ's  pre-existence  has  been  re-emphasized,  but  no 
further  evidence  is  offered  on  the  past  eternity  of  Christ. 

d)  Interpretation  of  the  introduction,  Heb.  1:1-4. — -^^  ^^  ^^  place  to 
consider  here  the  introduction  of  the  epistle  which  consists  of  the  first 
four  verses — or  more  strictly  speaking  of  the  first  three  verses,  for  the 
fourth  verse  is  transitional  to  the  next  section.  These  introductory 
verses  are  to  be  considered,  however,  in  their  specific  bearing  on  the 
relation  of  Jesus  to  God. 

Again  postponing  consideration  of  the  phrase  "in  a  Son"  (1:2)  till 
the  whole  question  of  Sonship  is  taken  up,  the  fact  is  here  to  be  noted 

381 


56  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

that  owing  to  the  position  given  it,  the  phrase,  ov  iOrjKev  KX-qpovofiov 
ndvTiovy  is  to  be  taken  in  close  association  with  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding phrase  "in  a  Son."  His  heirship  depends  upon,  or  at  least  is  the 
natural  result  of,  his  sonship  and  still  more  because  he  is  the  firstborn 
son  TTpcoTOTOKos  (1:3).  As  Riehm  says,^  his  heirship  denotes  the 
genuineness  of  his  Sonship  as  well  as  the  permanence  of  his  Lordship. 
This  appointment  as  heir  of  all  things  is  natural  and  right  not  only 
because  he  is  Son  but  also  because  it  was  through  him  that  God  made 
the  worlds. 

In  endeavoring  to  settle  the  question  as  to  whether  this  appointment 
to  heirship  is  conceived  by  the  writer  to  be  quasi-timeless  or  as  referring 
to  the  preincarnate  Christ  or  as  referring  to  the  exalted  Christ  one  is 
inclined,  as  in  several  other  places  in  this  epistle,  to  thrust  aside  the 
arguments  for  the  various  views  and  re-read  the  passage  with  intent  to 
take  the  natural  and  evident  meaning.  In  that  case  two  things  stand 
out  clear.  First,  the  position  of  the  word  Kai  indicates  that  the  making 
of  the  worlds  took  place  before  the  appointment  to  heirship,  for  other- 
wise the  Kttt  would  have  been  placed  first  in  its  clause.  Secondly,  the 
verb  iOrjKev^  since  it  is  not  definitely  modified  here,  refers  to  a  definite 
time  at  which  Christ  was  "placed"  heir  of  all  things.  The  fact  that  this 
heirship  is  repeatedly  referred  to  as  not  complete  or  not  yet  fully  realized 
(1:6;  1:13;  9:28;  10:13),  but  as  requiring  time  for  its  completion,  is 
also  in  favor  of  considering  the  appointment  as  occurring  in  time.  If 
this  is  so,  then  the  most  natural  time  for  the  appointment  to  heirship  is 
the  time  of  the  exaltation  of  Christ,  when,  according  to  the  bidding  of 
God  (i :  13),  he  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  the  heavens  (8:  i). 
This,  however,  is  not  to  be  so  understood  as  to  minimize  the  preincarnate 
activity  of  the  Son  which  has  been  already  spoken  of.  Rather,  the 
heirship  is  to  be  considered  as  an  additional  gift  to  Christ,  a  fitting 
reward  for  one  who  had  endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame,  and  so 
had  taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God  (12:2).  On 
account  of  Christ's  relation  to  God  as  Son  and  on  account  of  his  relation 
to  the  world  as  the  agent  of  its  creation,  his  appointment  to  the  heirship 
of  all  things  is  not  surprising,  but  rather  the  natural  and  eminently 
fitting  thing. 

Thus  far  the  external  or  official  relation  of  Christ  to  God  has  been 
considered.  There  is  only  one  passage  in  the  epistle  (1:3)  which  sets 
forth  the  internal  or  essential  relation  of  Christ  to  God,  and  this  verse 
appears  in  the  introduction. 

^  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebraerbriefs,  p.  297,  note,  quoting  Chrysostom. 

382 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  57 

The  meaning  of  this  passage  has  been  much  discussed,  with  com- 
paratively little  agreement  as  to  result.  The  chief  difference  of  opinion 
concerns  the  word  dTravyacrfta.  There  are  three  possibilities  as  to  the 
meaning.  The  word  comes  from  the  verb  a-rravya^w^  "to  shine  forth." 
The  three  possible  meanings  therefore  are:  (i)  "a  shining  or  flashing 
forth,"  referring  to  the  process  or  action;  (2)  "that  which  is  flashed 
forth,"  viz.,  "beam,"  "ray,"  "brightness,"  "emanation,"  referring  to 
the  result;  (3)  a  second  or  further  result,  viz.,  "reflected  radiance," 
"reflection."  For  the  noun  form  aTravyaafia  only  the  last  two  are 
likely  meanings,  since  the  word  by  its  formation  should  denote  result. 
The  proper  word  for  the  first  meaning,  "shining  forth,"  is  aTravyao-fids. 
This  word  is  found  in  Plutarch.^  Cremer  is  surely  wrong  in  making  this 
word  denote  here  the  final  result  of  the  action,  viz.,  "reflection,"  though 
it  may  possibly  denote  the  intermediate  result,  viz.,  "brightness," 
"splendor." 

The  difference  of  opinion,  then,  is  as  to  which  of  the  last  two  meanings 
the  word  diravyaa-fxa  bears  in  this  passage.  Does  it  mean  "effulgence," 
"emanation,"  German  Ausglanz,  or  "reflection,"  German  Ahglanz? 
Modern  opinion  is  almost  equally  divided,  a  slight  majority,  perhaps, 
being  in  favor  of  the  former  meaning,  viz.,  "effulgence,"  "radiance," 
Attsglanz.  The  means  of  decision  between  the  two  meanings  must  be 
an  impartial  study  of  the  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs.  That 
practically  all  the  Greek  fathers  take  the  word  here  in  the  former  mean- 
ing, viz.,  "effulgence,"  Ausglanz,  is  not  without  weight  since  it  must  be 
admitted  that  they  knew  Greek.  But  it  is  clear  that,  for  an  impartial 
consideration  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  earlier  and  contemporaneous 
usage  must  be  considered  rather  than  subsequent  usage.  The  word 
however  is  a  rare  one,  and  in  earlier  usage  is  found  only  in  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  and  in  Philo.  This  is  of  itself  significant,  however,  since  on 
numerous  grounds  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  known  to  be  intimately 
related  to  these  two  works. 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  four  passages  in  Philo  and  Wisdom  of 
Solomon  in  which  this  word  occurs  is  not  absolutely  decisive  in  result. 
In  Philo,  De  plantatione  Noe,  sec.  12,  there  is  every  probability  that  the 
word  means  "reflection,"  Ahglanz.  In  Philo,  De  concupisc,  sec.  11,  on 
the  other  hand  there  is  every  probability  that  the  word  means  "efful- 
gence," "emanation,"  as  the  writer  is  there  speaking  of  the  ttv^viw.  as 
breathed  into  man  by  God.  In  Philo,  De  mund.  op.,  sec.  51,  Cremer  says 
that  there  is  a  clear  case  of  the  word  meaning  "effulgence,"  while 

*  Mor.  934^- 

383 


58  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Westcott  says  that  the  more  appropriate  meaning  of  the  word  in  this 
passage  is  "reflection."  It  is  impossible  to  decide  firmly  and  clearly  as 
to  which  meaning  is  required  in  this  passage.  The  balance  of  probability 
however  lies  in  favor  of  the  meaning  "emanation,"  Ausglanz. 

The  passage  in  Wisd.  7 :  26  is  a  famous  one.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  writer  of  Hebrews  was  acquainted  with  it  and  was  influenced  by 
it  whether  consciously  or  unconsciously.  The  writer  is  speaking  of 
Wisdom  as  the  glorious  attribute  and  attendant  of  God,  and  enumerating 
its  qualities.  Cremer  says  the  associations  and  synonyms  require  the 
meaning  "effulgence"  and  von  Soden^  agrees  with  him.  Grimm,  on  the 
other  hand^  argues  very  cogently  for  the  meaning  "reflection."  Again, 
however,  the  balance  of  probability  decides  for  the  meaning  "effulgence." 
Of  the  four  passages  only  one  requires  the  meaning  "reflection."  So  far 
as  previous  usage  requires,  therefore,  the  balance  of  probability  lies 
in  favor  of  the  meaning  "effulgence,"  Ausglanz. 

With  this  information  the  passage  in  Hebrews  must  itself  be  con- 
sidered. This  involves  a  consideration  of  the  other  words  and  thoughts 
of  1:3  to  see  whether,  of  the  two  meanings,  the  context  decisively 
supports  either  one  or  the  other. 

The  word  x^P^'^''"np,  which  originally  denotes  an  instrument  to  stamp 
with,  such  as  a  seal,  comes  to  mean  either  the  stamp  (or  figure) 
on  the  seal  or  the  impression  which  such  a  stamp  would  make.  With 
this  word,  too,  then  there  is  the  possibility  of  a  double  meaning.  Von 
Soden  seems  to  want  to  combine  these  two  meanings  in  the  passage,  as 
also  the  two  meanings  of  diravyaa-fm^  but  his  way  of  working  it  out  is 
rather  ingenious  than  convincing.  Either  meaning  of  the  word,  not  both, 
may  be  taken  here,  provided  it  be  remembered  that  only  the  relation  of 
the  Son  to  God  is  here  spoken  of,  not  the  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  world 
or  to  men.  Von  Soden  is  no  doubt  right  in  comparing  the  use  here  with 
the  use  in  the  passage  of  Philo  where  the  divine  Logos  is  spoken  of 
as  the  x^P°^''^P  '^^  o-<^payt8os  ^cov.3  But  he  is  wrong  in  carrying 
over  into  the  Hebrews  passage  the  idea  of  instrument  which  is  in  the 
Philo  passage.  The  Philo  phrase  means  "the  impress  or  engraving 
which  is  on  the  seal  of  God,"  and  the  context  shows  that  this  engraving 
is  used  to  make  an  impression  on  man  and  the  world.  But  this  latter 
idea  is  not  at  all  found  in  the  Hebrews  phrase  or  its  context,  and  is 
wrongly  transferred  to  it  from  the  Philo  passage  by  von  Soden.     But  the 

^  Handcommentar  zum  N.T.,  "Der  Hebraerbrief,"  S.  19. 
^  Handbuch  zu  den  Apokryphen  des  A.  T.,  Buck  der  Weisheit,  VII,  26. 
3  De  plant.  Noe,  sec.  5;  cf.  Philo,  Quod  det.  pot.  insid.,  sec.  23. 

384 


THE   CHKISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  59 

first  meaning  is  no  doubt  the  right  meaning  to  assign  to  the  word  in 
Hebrews,  namely,  "the  impress  [or  stamp  or  engraving]  which  is  upon 
the  vTToo-Tao-ts  of  God,"  not  the  "impression  which  the  vTroa-Taais  of 
God  makes."  The  word  in  this  sense  is  most  closely  allied  to  its  fre- 
quent use  to  denote  the  mark  or  stamp  upon  coin  which,  as  Westcott 
says^  "determines,"  or,  as  he  might  better  say,  "expresses"  "the  nature 
and  value"  of  that  coin.*  He  says  rightly  that  the  word  "express,"  if 
the  English  had  such  a  noun,  would  better  denote  the  idea  of  the  word 
than  "impress."  It  is  that  which  reveals  in  characteristic  outline  the 
nature  of  that  with  which  it  is  connected.    It  is  thus  closely  related  to 

The  word  vTroorTao-ts  denotes  "that  which  stands  under,"  specifi- 
cally, that  which  underlies  phenomena  or  appearance,  namely  reality. 
The  word  then  means  the  "underlying  reality,"  the  "essence,"  as  the 
Germans  would  say  das  Wesen.  Its  use  for  personality  or  person  is  a 
later  development  that  does  not  belong  here. 

As  the  seal  and  the  stamp  are  closely  related,  so  closely  is  the  Son 
related  to  God  and  related  in  such  a  way  that  he,  the  Son,  is  both  the 
likeness  and  revelation  of  the  underlying  essence  or  nature  of  God. 

It  was  hoped  that  within  this  verse  (1:3)  itself  something  would  be 
found  which  would  decide  clearly  between  the  two  meanings  of  the  word 
airavyaafUL.  This  has  not  turned  out  to  be  the  case.  But  the  fact 
that  the  word  x^P^'^'^P  is  so  closely  related  to  cikcov  in  meaning  and 
that  this  meaning  is  almost  identical  with  the  second  meaning  of 
d7ravya(r/aa,  viz.,  "reflection,"  makes  it  altogether  probable  that  the 
writer  would  make  use  of  the  meaning  of  dTravyac/uta  which  is  further 
removed  from  that  of  ctKwv.  In  brief,  airavyafriM  meaning  "reflection" 
and  xapa'«i''7/t>  meaning  "likeness"  are  too  slightly  differentiated  to  give 
sufficient  point  to  the  writer's  use  of  xapaKTi^p  as  an  additional  alter- 
native to  diravyaa-iiw..  It  may  be  added  that  as  "likeness"  goes  suit- 
ably with  vTr6aTa(n<Sf  SO  "effulgence"  rather  than  "reflection"  goes  suitably 
with  5o^a. 

This  gives  increased  probability  to  the  evidence  for  the  meaning 
"effulgence,"  gathered  from  earlier  usage  in  Philo  and  Wisdom  of 
Solomon.  The  fact  that  the  Greek  fathers  uniformly  take  the  word 
airavyao'fx.a  as  meaning  "effulgence"  adds  still  further  to  the  probability. 
This  part  of  vs.  3  may  then  be  translated,  "who  being  the  radiance 
of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  essence." 

^  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ad  loc. 

"Eurip.  El.  559  f.;  Arist.  Pol.  1:9. 

385 


bO  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

These  phrases  have  been  considered  with  the  purpose  of  eliciting  the 
information  they  give  or  imply  as  to  the  relation  of  the  Son  to  God. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  as  Philo  and  Wisdom  of  Solomon  apply  these 
and  similar  terms  to  the  Logos  and  Wisdom,  so  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
applies  them  to  the  Son  as  preincarnate,  with  whom  (as  will  be  seen  later) 
he  has  identified  the  Logos.  If  this  identification  of  the  historical 
Jesus  with  the  Logos  (or,  as  it  might  better  be  expressed,  the  substitution 
of  the  idea  of  the  preincarnate  Son  for  the  Logos  idea  of  Philo)  be 
accepted,  then  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  these  phrases 
introduced  by  the  participle  <ov,  as  well  as  the  one  introduced  by  the 
participle  <t>ip(i)v,  refer  to  this  preincarnate  Son,  for  they  were  certainly 
used  of  the  Logos  by  Philo. 

In  the  same  way  it  follows  that  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  God 
denoted  by  these  words  in  Philo  forms  the  model  or  type,  so  to  speak, 
which  the  author  has  in  mind  as  he  uses  the  phrases  of  the  pre-existent 
Son.  This  is  not  to  be  pressed  so  far  as  to  mean  that  the  author  is  a 
mere  slavish  imitator  of  Philo  in  his  views  and  method  of  presentation. 
But  it  does  mean  that  in  his  effort  to  set  forth  the  significance  and 
supremacy  of  the  historical  Jesus  he  has  gone  beyond  the  limits  of 
history,  has  passed  beyond  the  Jewish  identification  of  Jesus  with 
the  Messiah,  and  has  entered  the  field  of  Greek  thought  and  phi- 
losophy. He  has  identified  Jesus  with  the  Greek  Logos,  and,  having 
so  identified  him,  he  assigns  to  him  as  the  preincarnate  Son  some 
at  least  of  the  attributes  and  relations  of  the  Logos,  specifically  his 
relations  to  God  as  expressed  in  the  phrases  of  vs.  3  which  we  have  been 
considering.  This  identification  having  been  made  by  the  author  of 
Hebrews,  it  is  necessary  to  interpret  expressions  which  are  used  of  the 
Logos  as  referring  not  to  the  historical  Jesus  only,  nor  even  to  the  exalted 
Christ  only,  but  to  this  personality  viewed  as  continuous,  that  is  to 
say,  though  expressed  less  accurately,  to  the  preincarnate  Son.  These 
phrases  of  vs.  3  are,  then,  to  be  interpreted  as  denoting  the  inner  or 
essential  relation  of  the  preincarnate  Son  to  God. 

The  last  phrase  of  vs.  3  introduced  by  <t>€p<av  refers  to  the  pre- 
existent  Son.  The  natural  reading  of  the  verse  would  make  the  avrov 
after  Swa/Acws  have  the  same  reference  as  the  avrov  after  vTroo-rao-cws, 
viz.,  to  God.  While,  therefore,  this  phrase  denotes  primarily  a  rela- 
tion of  the  Son  to  the  world,  it  also  denotes  a  relation  to  God. 
The  thought  is  much  the  same  as  that  of  Col.  1:17,  but  is  expressed 
in  a  more  external  way  and  emphasizes  the  subordinate  relation  of 
the    Son    to    God.      The    particle    re,    which    is  **  adjunctive,"    not 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  61 

"conjunctive,"^  implies  that  the  close  relation  to  God  indicated  in  the 
immediately  preceding  phrases  is  the  inner  ground  of  the  relation  of  the 
Son  to  the  world  of  time  and  space.  It  may  be  noticed  in  passing  that 
this  phrase  is  a  close  parallel,  both  in  thought  and  in  word,  to  several 
passages  of  Philo  in  regard  to  the  Logos.' 

But  the  inner  and  essential  relation  of  the  pre-existent  Son  to  God 
must  be  inferred  primarily  from  the  first  two  phrases  of  the  verse.  The 
phrase  "radiance  of  his  glory,"  interpreted  by  following  the  similar 
description  of  the  Logos  and  Wisdom  given  in  the  passage  quoted  from 
Philo  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  indicates  that  the  Son  is  a  revelation 
of  the  glory  of  God  but  in  such  a  way  that  the  Son  himself  has  a  glory 
which  is  similar  to,  indeed  the  same  as,  that  of  God  but  which  is  derived 
from  God.  Whether  the  author  of  Hebrews  thought  any  more  definitely 
of  the  person  of  the  preincarnate  Son  than  Philo  thought  of  the  person 
of  the  Logos  or  than  the  writer  of  Wisdom  of  Solomon  thought  of  the 
person  of  Wisdom  it  may  be  very  difiicult  to  say.  The  very  fact  that  he 
identifies  the  historical  Jesus  with  the  Logos  would  probably  cause  him 
to  think  of  the  preincarnate  Son  as  a  definite  person  (cf.  lo:  5  ff.).  But 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  phrase  "effulgence  of  his  glory"  is  at 
bottom  a  metaphor.  Without  doubt  there  is  a  deep  reality  underlying 
the  expression  of  the  writer,  but  that  reality  is  described  in  a  figure,  the 
figure  of  radiating  light.  That  he  conceived  the  nature  of  the  preincar- 
nate Son  to  be  like  to  and  derived  from  that  of  God  is  clear.  But  his 
thought  was  not  directed  toward  unfolding  the  implications  which  later 
theologians  saw  latent  in  the  phrase,  such  as  that  of  the  eternal  genera- 
tion, <^a)5  €K  <^a)Tos,  as  that  watchword  was  later  used  in  the  church. 
Delitzsch^  says  that  the  proper  consequences  to  be  drawn  from  this 
phrase  are:  (i)  that  the  Son  must  be  substantial  with  the  Father, 
inasmuch  as  what  emanates  from  light  must  itself  have  the  nature  of 
light,  and  (2)  that  the  divine  generation  of  the  Son  must  be  at  once  a 
free  and  a  necessary  process  within  the  Godhead,  inasmuch  as  ^  aiyq 
ov  Kara  irpoatpea-iv  rov  ^wtos  iKXdfXTrcL,  Kara  Si  Tt  t^s  ovcrtas  arv/JL^e^rfKo^ 
axw/jtcTTov.  With  Lunemann''  he  might  have  added  the  notion  of 
independent  existence  and  the  notion  of  resemblance.  And  it  must 
be  true  that  some  such  notions  of  the  Logos  and  his  nature  underlay 

^  Cf.  Thayer  under  re. 

"  Cf.  Quis  rer.  div.  haer.,  sec.  7;  de  somn.,  i,  41;  de  mut.  nom.,  sec.  44. 
3  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  I,  49. 
*  Meyer  Commentary  on  the  N.T.,  "Hebrews,"  p.  79. 

387 


62  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

this  phrase.  But  the  mistake  of  these  commentators  consists  in  using 
what  is  only  an  analogy,  a  metaphor,  as  if  it  were  a  syllogism  and  in 
making  inferences  from  it  toward  which  the  mind  of  the  writer  when 
he  wrote  the  phrase  was  not  directed.  If  the  writer  had  been  a 
modem  logician,  or  even  one  of  the  early  Greek  physical  philoso- 
phers, such  procedure  might  be  permissible.  As  it  is,  the  most 
we  should  say  is  that,  expressed  by  a  metaphor,  the  Logos  originally, 
and  hence  the  Son,  as  an  independent  or  semi-independent  being 
(expressed  by  the  passive  form  d7ravyao-/x,a)  shares  in  and  expresses  the 
glory  that  belongs  primarily  to  the  being  of  God. 

The  second  phrase,  "express  image  of  his  essence,"  goes  a  step 
farther,  saying  that  the  Logos  originally — and  hence  the  Son — ^is  a 
picture  or  revelation  to  the  world  of  the  true  being  or  nature  of  God  the 
one  who  is  in  himself  invisible  (ii :  27).  The  first  phrase  spoke  only  of 
the  "glory"  of  God,  this  phrase  speaks  of  the  "essence,"  the  true  being 
of  which  that  glory  was  but  the  expression.  The  phrase  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  saying  that  the  Logos,  and  hence  the  Son,  is  that  true  being 
or  essence,  or  even  that  he  partakes  of  that  essence.  This  is  rather  said 
by  the  former  phrase.  The  second  phrase  says  rather  that  the  Logos, 
and  hence  the  Son,  is  the  exact  (though  not  necessarily  "detailed")  and 
trustworthy  expression  of  the  underlying  reality  or  essence  which  gives 
rise  to  all  the  divine  glory.  The  word  "essence"  is  not  to  be  limited  to 
metaphysical  substance  but  is  to  be  considered  as  denoting  the  whole 
reality,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  underlies  and  produces  the  aesthetic, 
the  mental,  the  moral,  and  the  spiritual,  which  are  assigned  to  the  divine 
and  are  concentrated  in  the  Son. 

Combining  the  two  phrases,  it  is  evident  that  they  set  forth  an 
essential  relation  of  a  unique  being  to  God.  As  has  been  shown,  this 
being  is  supreme  over  angels,  over  Moses  and  Joshua,  over  priests  and 
prophets.  Such  is  he  in  himself  and  such  is  his  relation  to  God  and  men 
that  no  man,  angel,  or  spirit  could  do  the  work  that  he  has  done  in 
sacrifice  and  redemption  or  be  assigned  to  the  place  of  honor  to  which 
he  is  assigned  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high.  And  yet, 
though  sharing  in  and  expressing  the  glory  of  God  and  picturing  in  him- 
self at  once  metaphysically,  mentally,  morally,  and  spiritually  the  very 
nature  and  being  of  God,  he  is  continuously  dependent  on  God,  alike  in 
his  historical  manifestation  as  Jesus  and  in  his  pre-existent  life  as  Son. 

As  yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  evidence  for  the  past  eternity 
of  this  unique  being,  the  Son,  is  not  clear.  Even  the  phrases  of  vs.  3 
are  not  strong  enough,  not  definite  enough,  too  metaphorical,  to  permit 

388 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  63 

the  view  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal  generation  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer.  His  thought  is  not  directed  backward  but  forward,  not  to  the 
past  eternity  or  origin  of  the  Son,  but  to  his  practical  religious  and 
saving  work  in  the  world  of  men.  How  the  Son  could  be  the  radiance  of 
God's  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  essence  was  no  more  an  object 
of  thought  for  the  writer  than  how  the  shedding  of  blood  could  secure 
the  remission  of  sins.  The  one  was  an  assumption  from  his  Alexandrian 
training,  the  other  from  his  Jewish  training.^  The  striking  thoughts  of 
this  verse  are  not  again  referred  to  even  when  the  writer  touches  upon 
the  same  general  topic  (cf.  11:3). 

e)  Interpretation  of  Heb.  ij:8. — The  passage  in  13:8,  "Jesus  Christ 
yesterday  and  today  the  same,  and  forever,"  must  be  interpreted  in  its 
context.  It  is  connected  in  thought  both  with  what  precedes  and  with 
what  follows.  The  first  leaders  of  the  church  to  which  the  epistle  is 
addressed  had  died,  probably  as  martyrs  to  their  faith.  The  readers 
were  in  imminent  danger  of  forgetting  their  high  example.  They 
themselves  were  evidently  in  danger  of  thinking  their  faith  not  worth 
the  payment  of  such  a  price.  And  this  was  because  they  were  tempted 
to  think  that  Jesus  Christ  was  now  no  longer  so  real  and  powerful  as  in 
those  early  days  of  their  first  enthusiasm.  He  had  failed  to  fulfil  many 
of  their  expectations  and  so  could  no  longer  be  counted  on  to  make 
such  costly  sacrifice  worth  while.  As  an  answer  to  their  faithless  fore- 
bodings the  writer  assures  them  that  what  Jesus  Christ  was  in  that  earlier 
time  "yesterday"  that  he  is  also  in  the  present  time  "today."  The 
change  is  in  themselves,  not  in  him.  The  writer  is  contrasting  the  two 
periods  and  saying  that  Christ  is  the  same  in  both.  But  after  he  has 
said  this,  his  thought  extends  and  he  adds  what  he  had  not  at  first 
expected  to  say,  viz.,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  "forever."  So 
interpreted,  this  verse  has  nothing  to  say  with  regard  to  the  past  eternity 
of  Christ,  but  does  assert  very  distinctly  his  future  eternity. 

V.      VARIOUS   TITLES   OF   CHRIST 
I.      THE  CHRIST   (6  XP^<^T^^) 

The  title  6  xp'O'tos  with  the  article  occurs  in  the  epistle  six  times, 
viz.,  3:14;  5:5;  6:1;  9:14;  9:28;  11:26;  without  the  article  three 
times,  viz.,  3:6;  9:11;  9:24.  The  use  of  the  title  signifies  that  the 
historical  person  whom  the  writer  nine  times  calls  Jesus  has  been  identi- 
fied with  the  Jewish  Messiah.  But  it  is  evident  too  that  by  this  time 
the  idea  has  become  a  common  one,  for  in  the  three  passages  mentioned 

»  Cf.  von  Soden,  Handcommentar  zum  N.T.,  III,  "Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer,'*  S.  19. 

389 


64  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

above  the  title  is  used  without  the  article  simply  as  a  proper  name,  with 
no  particular  descriptive  force.  At  the  same  time  there  is  an  atmosphere 
about  the  name  ''Christ"  that  is  different  from  that  about  the  name 
"Jesus."  The  latter  denotes  the  human  and  the  historical;  the  former 
approaches  somewhat  to  the  official  and  eternal. 

From  a  study  of  the  six  passages  in  which  the  phrase  "the  Christ" 
occurs  it  is  plain  that  the  writer  uses  the  word  of  the  preincarnate  person 
who  is  called  the  Christ.  This  appears  from  the  passage  in  5:5,  where 
it  is  said  that  the  Christ  did  not  glorify  himself  to  become  High  Priest. 
Rather  it  was  God  who  glorified  him  thus  when  he  said,  "Thou  art  a 
priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek."  It  is  true  that  the  writer 
does  not  expressly  indicate  the  time  at  which  Christ  entered  on  his  office 
of  priest  or  became  priest.  But  he  seems  to  speak  at  least  of  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  oflBice  as  occurring  in  the  preincarnate  period.  It  is  closely 
associated  with  God's  address  to  him  in  5 : 5  as  Son:  "Thou  art  my  Son, 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  This  would  seem  to  show  that  the 
writer  uses  the  title  "the  Christ"  of  the  preincarnate  person.  This 
seems  the  more  likely  as  the  writer  immediately  after  speaks  of  this 
person  whom  he  has  just  before  called  "the  Christ"  as  offering  prayers 
and  learning  obedience  "w  the  days  of  his  flesh ^ 

The  difficult  phrase  in  11:26,  "esteeming  the  reproach  of  the  Christ 
greater  wealth  than  the  treasures  of  Egypt,"  is  also  most  naturally 
interpreted  by  taking  the  Christ  to  denote  the  preincarnate  person,  the 
Logos.  The  phrase  must  be  taken  as  an  exact  parallel  of  the  thought 
in  13:13.  The  latter  verse  in  its  context  can  only  mean  that  that 
reproach  (strictly  speaking  only  a  similar  reproach)  which  the  Christ 
bore  in  being  ignominiously  thrust  out  of  the  city  and  crucified,  they  too 
must  bear  as  partners  with  him  who  is  the  ever-living  one.  Transferring 
this  interpretation  to  the  phrase  "the  reproach  of  the  Christ"  in  11:26, 
it  means  that  in  suffering  with  the  people  of  God  Moses  was  bearing  such 
reproach  as  the  Christ  bore  in  his  life  and  death  on  earth.  But  how 
could  the  writer  of  Hebrews  say  this  truly  of  Moses  ?  The  most  natural 
explanation  seems  to  be  that  here  too  the  writer  uses  the  title  "the 
Christ"  of  the  preincarnate  one,  the  Logos.  This  view  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  Philo  too  conceives  the  Logos  to  be  active  in  the  Old 
Testament  history  of  Israel. 

There  are  several  who  insist  strongly  on  the  full  mystical  significance 
of  these  passages  (11:26;  13:13),  notably  Delitzsch.'  The  thought  is 
similar  indeed  to  that  of  Paul,  especially  as  expressed  in  I  Cor.  10:4; 

'  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  II,  transl. 

390 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  65 

II  Cor.  1:5;  Col.  1 :  24.  But  the  Pauline  mysticism  is  not  found  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  one  must  guard  against  attributing  it  to  the 
writer  here.  It  is  true  that  these  two  passages  (11 :  26;  13 :  13)  indicate 
a  participation  in  the  sufferings  and  reproach  of  Christ,  but  they  do  not 
carry  the  deep  mysticism  of  Paul.  They  do  not  justify  speaking  of 
Moses  and  the  New  Testament  Christians  as  suffering  as  members  of 
Christ.  This  Bleek  does  when  he  says  that  the  reproach  is  that  "welche 
er  [Christus]  in  seinen  Gliedern  zu  erdulden  hat."^  Bleek's  view  of  the 
passage  is  essentially  right,  but  he  is  unduly  influenced  by  the  dominant 
Pauline  view  when  he  speaks  of  believers  as  suffering  as  members  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  That  is  a  Pauline  and  also  a  Johannine  figure,  but  a 
conception  which  does  not  belong  to  the  writer  of  Hebrews.  This  is  one 
of  the  numerous  instances  in  which  the  thoughts  of  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
approach  very  closely  to  the  thoughts  of  Paul,  yet  are  to  be  carefully 
differentiated  in  form,  content,  and  point  of  view. 

In  the  two  passages  just  considered,  as  also  in  the  four  remaining 
passages  (3:14;  6:1;  9:14;  9:28),  the  title  "the  Christ"  denotes  the 
Messiah  in  his  official  function.  In  3: 14,  "For  we  are  become  partners 
of  the  Christ,"  etc.,  the  title  is  used  of  the  official  position  of  Jesus  as 
captain  of  salvation,  the  bearer  of  the  blessings  of  salvation  in  which 
believers  share  with  him.  It  is  the  same  thought  as  in  11 :  26  and  13 :  13 
except  that  there  believers  were  partners  with  the  Christ  in  reproach 
and  sufferings,  here  they  share  in  the  blessings  of  salvation  which  he 
brings  as  Messiah.  In  6 :  i  the  title  is  used  of  the  Messiah  in  his  earthly 
manifestation.  It  is  not,  however,  the  political  and  economic  Messiah 
of  the  primitive  Christian  conception.  The  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  is 
twofold,  elemental  and  advanced.  But  even  the  elemental  doctrine,  the 
"doctrine  of  the  beginning  of  the  Christ"  (cf.  5:12),  consists  of  the 
catechetical  doctrines  of  the  developed  church,  doctrines  connected  with 
the  salvation  which  he  brought  who  was  the  anointed  of  God  (cf.  2:3). 
In  the  remaining  two  passages  the  messianic  reference,  though  present, 
is  not  so  distinctive  (9: 14,  28). 

The  title  6  xpi<^^os  denotes  the  Messiah,  not  as  the  Jews  con- 
ceived him  in  the  earlier  Christian  period,  political  and  economic  and 
saving,  but  as  saving  only.  He  is  the  fulfiUer  of  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cies and  promises  (9:28).  He  is  the  official  one  from  God  who  established 
the  new  covenant  and  mediated  through  his  sacrifice  and  High-Priesthood 
(9 :  14  ff .)  the  blessings  of  salvation  and  of  the  future  messianic  age.  As 
such  he  is  also  pre-existent,  active  in  Old  Testament  history  and  in  the 

^  Bleek,  Commentar  iiber  den  Hebraer-Brief,  II,  S.  803. 

391 


66  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

creation  of  the  world.  This  conception,  however,  is  rather  that  of  the 
Logos  than  that  of  the  pre-existent  Messiah  of  late  Judaism.  In 
Hebrews  the  title  has  largely  lost  its  original  import  and  has  become  a 
conventional  term  or  a  mere  name. 

2.      THE   APOSTLE    (6   &7r6(rTo\os) 

The  word  dTroa-roXos  in  the  double  title  applied  to  Jesus  (Heb.  3:1) 
is,  as  Bleek  says,^  "ganz  eigenthiimlich."  But  perhaps  not  so  altogether 
peculiar  as  it  has  seemed  to  Bleek  and  to  many  early  interpreters  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  there  has  been  a  persistent  but  entirely  mistaken 
tendency  to  associate  the  term  with  the  twelve  apostles,  including  Paul. 
This  application  of  the  term  to  the  twelve  persons  who  had  seen  the 
Lord  and  who  could  do  characteristic  apostolic  deeds^  is  apparently 
an  altogether  special  and  almost  technical  use  of  the  word.  This  use 
may  have  developed  in  a  measure  owing  to  the  insistence  of  Paul  that  he 
too  belonged  to  this  select  apostolic  circle  because  he  had  seen  the  Lord.^ 
At  any  rate  it  is  clear  that  this  technical  use  of  the  word  had  been  over- 
emphasized to  the  exclusion  of  the  general  force  of  the  word  which  held 
good  both  before  and  after  this  technical  use.^ 

This  undue  emphasis  on  the  technical  use  has  led  some  to  try  to 
relate  the  force  of  the  word  in  Heb.  3 :  i  to  the  twelve  apostles.^  It  has 
led  others  to  resort  to  the  rabbinic-talmudic  use  of  Jl'^bizi  as  the  dele- 
gate, deputy,  or  representative  of  the  Sanhedrin  or  community  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement.^ 

The  word  dvoa-ToXos  here  (Heb.  3:1)  has  no  special  reference  to 
the  twelve  apostles  and  probably  no  relation  with  the  talmudic  usage. 
The  perplexity^  vanishes  when  it  is  recognized  that  though  the  technical 
use  of  the  word  d7r6(TTo\o<s  overshadowed  the  regular  use,  it  did  not 

^  Bleek,  Commentar  Uber  den  Hebraer-Brief,  I,  S.  379. 

'  Real-Encykl.  f.  protest.  Theologie  u.  Kirche,  I,  art.  "Apostel." 

3  Gebhardt  u.  Hamack,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  altchrist. 
Literatur,  II,  i-ii,  S.  116  fin. 

4  Schmidt  unduly  emphasizes  the  technical  use  when  he  limits  the  term  to  the 
twelve:  Real-Encykl.  f.  protest.  Theologie  u.  Kirche,  I,  S.  701. 

5  Bleek,  Commentar  iiber  den  Hebr der- Brief,  I,  S.  380. 

^  Tholuck,  Hebrews,  I-II,  p.  190;  cf.  Berach.,  Joma.,  I,  5  der  Misch,na;  also  Wolf, 
Wetstein,  Stuart. 

7  Cf.  Tholuck,  op.  cit.,  I-II,  p.  18  f.:  "This  passage  contains  the  only  example  of 
the  predicate  6  air6(TTo\os  applied  to  Jesus  and  has  given  rise  to  the  puzzling  question, 
*In  what  passage  of  the  New  Testament  is  Jesus  numbered  among  the  Apostles?^ 
These  reasons  oblige  us  to  look  around  for  some  other  explanation." 

392 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  67 

destroy  it.  The  Didache  shows  plainly  that  the  apostles  were  profes- 
sional itinerant  missionary  preachers  and  teachers  of  the  gospel^  who 
were  expected  to  observe  carefully  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Lord  in 
Matt.  lo:  5  ff.  Lucian^  tells  us  of  Peregrinus,  one  of  these  professional, 
wandering  missionary  apostles,^  who  fleeced  the  flock.  Harnack  says 
that  ther  whole  story  of  Peregrinus  is  a  splendid  illustration  of  chap,  ii 
of  the  Didache.4 

This  helps  to  remove  the  difliculty  which  Tholuck  felt  so  keenly  and 
which  hindered  him  from  giving  to  the  word  here  (3:1)  the  meaning 
which  he  felt  was  fitting,  namely,  that  Jesus  is  the  "immediate  aTroa-roXo^ 
rov  ^eov."  This  is  the  thought  brought  out  strongly  in  Justin  Martyr .s 
It  is  true  indeed  that  this  is  apparently  the  only  place  where  the  noun 
dTTocTToXos  is  used  of  Jesus,  and  this  is  striking  and  perhaps  suggestive, 
as  Bruce  says,^  of  the  fresh  creative  genius  of  the  writer  and  of  the 
unconventional  nature  of  his  style.  But  the  thought  of  this  particular 
relation  to  God  is  common  enough  and  the  corresponding  verb  (d7ro<7Te\A<o) 
is  frequently  found.7 

In  this  passage  (3:1)  the  writer  is  evidently  thinking  of  the  contrast 
he  is  about  to  make  between  Moses  and  Jesus.  It  is  better  therefore 
to  consider  that  he  applies  both  titles  "apostle"  and  "high  priest"  to 
Moses  rather  than  the  latter  to  Aaron  as  Keil  thinks.*  This  is  supported 
by  the  fact  that  Philo  speaks  of  Moses  as  fiaaiXeik  tc  koI  voixodiryj's 
Kox  dpx^epevs  koI  TrpofjyrJTrj'i^  The  word  "confession,"  rarely  used  in 
the  New  Testament,^*'  wavers  here  as  Delitzsch  says  between  the 
subjective"  and  objective,"  being  specifically  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  but  inclusive  of  both.  It  denotes  not  an  objective  statement  or 
creed^^  but  rather  the  public  attitude  or  avowal  of  allegiance  to  Chris- 
tianity taken  upon  themselves  by  all  Christians.  It  is  objective,  not  in 
the  sense  of  denoting  any  definite  statement  or  creed,  but  as  denoting  a 

^  Didache  11 :3  ff.  <  Texte  und  Unterstichungen,  II,  i-ii,  S.  38. 

2 125-200  A.D.  s  Dial.  75. 

3  Lucian,  Peregr.  Prot.,  11.  ^  Bruce,  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  131. 

7  Luke  4: 43;  9:48;  10:16;  Acts  3:20-26;  Gal.  4:4;  John  17:3-18,  et  passim. 

8  Keil,  Commentar  uber  den  Hebrder-Brief,  S.  87. 
9De  vita  Mosis,  II,  (Cohn  ed..  III). 

"Only  in  II  Cor.  9:13;  I  Tim.  6:12,  13,  outside  of  Heb.  3:1;  4:14;  10:23. 

"  See  Thayer,  N.T.  Lexicon,  s.v. 

"  Preuschen,  Handworterbuch  zum  N.T.,  says  active  and  passive. 

«3  Georg  Hollmann,  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments ,  2.  Aufl.  II,  S.  456. 


68  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

great  new  system  in  which  Jesus  is  God's  delegate  and  representative  in 
contrast  with  the  old  in  which  Moses  was  God's  delegate  and  representa- 
tive. The  significance  of  the  word  ''apostle"  (3:1)  is  therefore  an 
expression  of  the  thought  of  XaXeiv,  as  used  in  1:1,  2  of  the  Son  as  a 
revealer  of  God  superior  to  the  prophets,  and  in  2:2  f.,  as  a  revealer  of 
God  superior  to  the  angels.  The  phrase  AaXovvTes  t6v  Xoyov  tov  Oeov 
is  the  phrase  regularly  used  of  the  professional  itinerant  apostles, 
both  in  Hebrews  (cf.  13:7,  17,  24)  and  in  the  church  generally.  Com- 
pared with  these  apostles  Jesus  is  the  apostle  of  the  confession  who 
really  brings  salvation.  He  is  God's  commissioned  delegate  and  rep- 
resentative both  to  declare  and  to  consummate  the  salvation  which  is 
the  heart  of  the  new  confession  (5:10).^ 

3.     THE  FIRSTBORN  (6  TrpwrbroKoi) 

The  title  6  TrpuiToroKo^  used  of  Christ  only  in  i :  6  is  rather  difficult 
of  explanation.  It  is  a  word  that  is  exceedingly  common  in  its  literal 
meaning  in  the  Septuagint  and  comparatively  common  there  in  its 
figurative  uses.  It  is  found  four  times  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers — twice 
in  its  literal  use,  twice  in  its  figurative  use.  The  word  6  7rpo>Toyovos, 
which  is  identical  in  meaning,  is  used  frequently  by  Philo  of  the  Logos. 
This  form  is  found  also  in  one  passage  in  the  Septuagint  (Sir.  36:17), 
though  even  here  one  manuscript  has  the  other  form.  It  is  an  evidence 
of  the  dominating  power  of  the  strictly  Palestinian  literature  and  thought 
that  the  form  tt/owtotokos  is  the  only  one  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  indeed  in  the  New  Testament. 

Outside  of  Hebrews  this  word  "firstborn"  occurs  five  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  viz.,  Luke  2:7;  Rom.  8:29;  Col.  1:15,  18;  Rev.  1:5, 
and  in  each  case  it  is  modified  in  some  definite  way.  In  Hebrews  it  is 
found  in  three  passages,  viz.,  1:6;  11:28;  12:23.  In  its  literal  meaning 
of  "firstborn"  it  needs  no  explanation.  In  its  figurative  use  it  has  two 
meanings.  First,  it  denotes,  not  physical  origin,  but  a  relationship  of 
likeness  or  similarity  of  character,  such  as  generally  springs  from  physical 
origin.  This  use  of  the  word  is  not  found  in  the  New  Testament,  but 
the  thought  is  found  in  Jesus'  words  to  the  Jews  accusing  them  that  they 
were  of  their  father  the  devil  (John  8:44).  Two  cases  of  this  use  of  the 
word  are  found  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  In  the  Martyrdom  of  Poly- 
carp,  Epilogue  2,  as  given  in  the  Moscow  MS,  Polycarp  says  to  the 
heretic  Marcion,  "I  recognize,  I  recognize  the  firstborn  of  Satan." 

^  Cf.  on  this  whole  subject  Lightfoot,  Galatians,  pp.  92  ff.,  and  especially 
Hamack,  Texte  und  U titer suchungen,  II,  i-ii,  S.  93  £f.,  specifically  S.  no,  n.  23.1. 

394 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  69 

The  same  phrase  recurs  in  Poly  carp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  7:1. 
The  word  in  this  use  denotes  the  highest  possible  degree  of  likeness  and 
similarity  of  character. 

In  the  second  figurative  use  of  the  word  the  two  ideas  of  relationship 
and  likeness  prominent  in  the  first  use  become  more  or  less  latent,  and 
the  two  ideas  of  priority  and  superiority  or  pre-eminence  are  strongly 
emphasized.  These  two  ideas  are  also  abstracted  very  easily  and 
naturally  from  the  literal  meaning  "firstborn."  Priority  in  time  is 
especially  emphasized  in  Col.  1:18;  Rev.  1:5,  and  Heb.  12:23,  though 
the  ideas  of  relationship  and  superiority  are  not  altogether  lacking,  as 
the  context  in  each  case  plainly  shows.  In  Col.  1:15  and  Rom.  8:29, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  emphasis  is  on  rank.  It  denotes  the  superiority, 
supremacy,  pre-eminence  such  as  belongs  only  to  a  firstborn  son.  In 
these  two  passages  also,  as  the  context  shows,  the  idea  of  relationship 
(not  physical,  of  course,  but  possibly  metaphysical)  is  comparatively 
strong. 

Of  the  three  passages  in  Hebrews  containing  the  word,  that  in  11 :  28 
is  literal  and  simple.  In  1 2 :  23  the  use  of  the  word,  and  the  whole  passage 
in  which  it  occurs,  cause  considerable  difiiculty.  That  interpretation  is 
most  natural  which  makes  the  word  ''firstborn"  refer  not  to  men  (men 
are  referred  to  later  under  the  category  of  "just  men  made  perfect"), 
but  to  the  angels,  who  are  firstborn  in  the  sense  of  having  been  created 
before  men. 

There  are,  thus,  three  prominent  ideas  in  the  figurative  use  of 
TrpwTOTOKos:  (i)  priority  in  time;  (2)  relationship  of  some  sort  not 
physical,  issuing  in  ethical  likeness,  similarity  of  character;  (3)  superi- 
ority, supremacy,  pre-eminence  such  as  the  firstborn  son  enjoys;  but 
that  in  which  precisely  this  pre-eminence  consists  must  be  gathered  from 
the  general  context. 

It  is  a  plausible  suggestion  that  the  word  "firstborn"  here  denotes  a 
relation  of  Christ  primarily  to  the  world.  There  is  something  in  the  im- 
mediate context  to  support  this.  And  there  is  a  very  interesting  parallel 
to  the  middle  phrase  of  i :  2  in  the  Septuagint,  Ps.  88  (89) :  25-28,  where 
God  is  spoken  of  as  exalting  his  chosen  and  anointed  servant  David  over 
the  sea  and  the  rivers  and  the  earth  and  the  kings  of  the  earth.  The 
psalm  was  interpreted  messianically  and  has  many  striking  parallels  to 
Hebrews.  In  vs.  27,  "I  also  will  make  him  my  firstborn  the  highest  of 
the  kings  of  the  earth,"  the  same  word  is  used  as  in  Heb.  1:2,  "whom  He 
made  heir  of  all  things."  The  psalm  must  have  been  familiar  to  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  and  probably  this  passage  was  in  his  mind.    One 

395 


70  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

might  then  assume  that  in  the  thought  of  the  writer  TrpwroroKos  was 
synonymous  with  KXrjpovofxov  Trdvroiv  of  1:2,  and  that  therefore  the 
word  denotes  here  primarily  a  relation  of  Christ  to  the  world  as  the 
sum-total  of  things.  But  the  context  does  not  sufficiently  support  this 
exceedingly  plausible  interpretation  of  the  word.  The  word  translated 
*' world"  in  this  verse  does  not  denote  the  world  as  the  sum- total  of 
things,  but  rather  the  world  as  the  dwelling-place  of  human  beings,  the 
inhabited  earth.  Thus  there  is  no  ground  in  the  context  for  identifying 
the  firstborn  in  1:6  with  the  heir  of  all  things  in  1:2.  Moreover,  the 
relation  of  i :  2  with  Ps.  88  (89) :  28,  while  probable  enough,  would  not 
justify  the  extreme  inference  of  identifying  "firstborn"  of  1:6  with 
"heir  of  all  things"  of  1:2. 

That  the  word  "firstborn"  of  1:6  should  be  used  so  absolutely  and 
without  any  qualifications  suggests  rather  that  its  significance  must  be 
taken  from  the  immediate  context.  If  so,  it  must  be  taken  as  practically 
equal  to  6  vtos,  and  denotes  therefore  primarily  a  relation  to  God,  a 
relation  which  is  not  further  defined,  a  relation  such  as  angels  do  not 
enjoy,  viz.,  the  relation  of  honor,  responsibility,  love,  and  devotion  to 
God  which  can  most  fittingly  be  described  as  the  relation  of  a  firstborn 
son  to  a  father. 

It  is  difficult  to  state  more  definitely  the  author's  idea  of  this  relation- 
ship of  Christ  to  God.  Its  uniqueness  is  emphasized  by  contrast  with 
the  world  of  angels,  men,  and  things.  As  in  the  ancient  world  the 
relationship  of  the  firstborn  son  to  the  father  was  superior  to  that  of  the 
other  sons  and  daughters,  so  the  relation  of  Christ  to  God  was  superior  to 
that  of  the  angels.  The  word  in  itself  need  not  imply  pre-existence  and 
essential  relationship  to  God  (cf.  Exod.  4:22;  Jer.  (31:9),  but  in  our 
writer's  thought  it  probably  implies  both. 

4.     THE  LORD   (6  /n/pios) 

For  the  interpretation  of  this  title  it  will  be  well,  first,  to  present 
an  outline  of  the  development  of  the  meaning  of  Kvpio^  in  the  New 
Testament  writings,  showing  that  the  word  in  its  meaning  is  Hebraic 
and  Aramaic,  not  Greek  in  origin,  and  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  was 
greatly  influenced  by  associations  with  the  Jewish  messianic  concept 
and  later  by  associations  with  the  actual  Greek  word  Kv/aios  as  it  was 
used  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world,  so  that  it  came  to  have  a  greatly 
heightened  significance,  a  significance  never  indeed  equal  to  ^cos  yet 
closely  approaching  it.  In  the  second  place,  we  must  investigate  the  use 
of  the  title  Kvptos  in  Hebrews,  and  its  place  in  the  general  development. 

396 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  71 

There  were  three  Hebrew  words  which  in  the  Septuagint  were  trans- 
lated by  Kvpios,  nin^  D^ri'blij?,  and  ^Dnyj.  Of  these  three,  the  first, 
iTiTT ,  is  the  peculiar  name  of  the  God  of  the  Israelites,  which  came 
later  to  be  reckoned  as  too  sacred  for  pronunciation.  Hence  the 
word  ^D15<  was  pronounced  in  its  place.  The  second  word,  D^»lbi<, 
was  occasionally  translated  by  Kvptos  in  the  Septuagint,  but  more 
frequently  by  ^eog,  which  is  its  regular  equivalent  in  the  New  Testament. 
Two  words,  bSl ,  and  the  possibly  later  J^ibx  ,  which  are  singular  forms 
and  which  seem  to  be  related  to  D"'»l'bi<  S  are  also  translated  by  Kvpios, 
but  they  occur  rarely.  The  third  word,  ^Tl^^y  "my  Lord,"  does  not 
often  occur  in  reference  to  God  but  is  translated  by  Kvptos.  Kvpio? 
thus  does  triple  work  in  the  Septuagint  as  a  designation  for  God,  and 
this  in  addition  to  its  being  used  to  translate  some  of  these  words  when 
they  do  not  denote  God,  especially  THt^ ,  since  all  except  Jlln*'  and 
nibi^  have  other  uses  in  addition  to  denoting  God. 

Thus  the  word  Kvptos  was  exceedingly  well  known  to  the  New 
Testament  writers  from  Old  Testament  usage.  For  this  reason  it  would 
come  readily  to  the  mind  of  New  Testament  writers  as  a  title  of  Christ 
when  they  spoke  of  him  or  wrote  of  him  in  Greek.  This  would  be 
especially  true  after  Christ's  resurrection  and  exaltation,*  because  of 
numerous  Old  Testament  quotations  in  which  Kvpio^  is  applied  to  Christ 
as  Messiah  even  where  in  the  original  the  application  was  clearly  to  God 
(cf.  Heb.  i:io).  Wernle  holds  that  Paul  substituted  Kvpto^  for  Xpto-ros 
as  being  more  suggestive  and  meaningful  to  Greeks  ;3  and  Deissmann 
emphasizes  strongly  the  fact  that  Paul's  usage  of  the  term  as  well  as  the 
New  Testament  usage  in  general  arises  as  at  the  same  time  a  parallel  to, 
and  a  contrast  with,  oriental  usage  of  the  word  in  designation  of  princes 
and  kings.  This  oriental  usage  conquered  the  western  world,  being 
applied  to  the  Roman  emperors,  probably  to  Nero  first.'*  But  this  is 
putting  a  greater  weight  on  Greek  influence  than  the  facts  warrant.  No 
doubt  Graeco-Roman  usage  influenced  Christian  usage,  but  as  Case^ 
shows,  there  is  some  evidence  and  much  probability  that  an  equivalent 

*  Many  scholars  hold  that  b^  ,  the  plural  of  which  would  be  D'^bSJ ,  is  not  related 
to  D'^nb^  ;  cf.  Brown,  Briggs,  and  Driver,  and  Buhl's  Gesenius. 

'  Cf .  Paul,  Phil.  2 : 9  £f.,  which  implies  that  the  confession  is  a  result  of  the 
exaltation. 

3  Die  Anfange  unserer  Religion,  2.  Aufl.,  S.  176. 

4  Licht  vom  Osten,  S.  257. 

s  "KiJptos  as  a  title  for  Christ,"  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  XXVI,  1907. 

397 


72  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  the  Greek  title  Kvptos  was  applied  to  Jesus  during  his  life.  In  the 
first  place,  this  would  be  entirely  natural  to  Semitic  usage.  Oriental 
usage  in  general,  both  in  the  present  day  and  as  far  back  as  early 
Eg3^tian  times,  uses  a  title  like  KvpLo<s^  only  for  persons  recognized  as 
superiors  in  education,  station  in  life,  etc.  In  the  second  place,  more 
definite  justification  for  carrying  this  title  back  to  the  Aramaic-speaking 
Jews  of  Christ's  own  lifetime  is  found  in  the  preservation  of  the  watch- 
word fiapav  dOd,  "Our  Lord  cometh,"  or  "Come,  O  Lord!"  (cf.  I  Cor. 
16:22)  by  Paul.  Here  pl3  is  the  Aramaic  for  "Our  Lord,"^  and  must 
be  a  stray  bit  of  primitive  tradition  fortunately  preserved  for  us  by 
Paul.3 

This  introduces  the  intermediate  element  of  Aramaic  usage,  for  it  is 
agreed  that  the  originals  of  Jesus'  teachings  were  given  in  Aramaic.  It 
is  agreed  too  that  the  first  disciples  of  Jesus  spoke  of  him  as  "Lord,"  and 
so  must  have  used  some  form  of  1}<17J ,'»  to  say  nothing  of  yi . 

Thus  three  distinct  factors  contributed  to  the  significance  of  the  title 
Kvpios  in  the  New  Testament  field.  First,  there  was  the  Old  Testament 
usage,  especially  ,of  ''DllSt  as  it  is  met  by  and  passes  into  the  Aramaic 
usage  of  ^I'Q  ,  which  is  no  doubt,  as  Case  shows,  the  origin  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  title  "Lord"  to  Christ.s  Concomitant  with  this  there  was 
the  influence  of  the  Septuagint  in  its  oft  repeated  Kvptos  for  tTitTl ,  ^yiH^  , 
and  occasionally  for  D^flbi^  (blSt  and  Jlibj^).  There  is,  thirdly,  the 
somewhat  later  influence  of  Graeco-Roman  usage  which  Wernle  and 
Deissmann  (also  in  less  degree  Dalman)  emphasize  as  being  specially 
manifest  in  New  Testament  writings.    There  is  need  of  more  detailed 

'  Arabic  chawaga  or  effendi=ouT  "Mister";  Aramaic  ^^D  or  "'2'^ . 

'  Cf.  Johannes  Weiss,  Christus,  Die  Anfange  des  Dogmas,  S.  24. 

3  It  may  be  added  that  in  spite  of  John's  interpretation  didda-KoXe,  the  Aramaic 
title  Rabbi,  Rabboni  would  also  j&nd  natural  equivalent  in  Greek  in  Ktjpie,  an  equiva- 
lent apparently  more  fitting  in  some  places  than  the  technical  term  dtddaKaXe  which 
John  and  Matthew  use;  cf.  Mark  10: 51;  John  20: 16.  There  is  nothing  intrinsically 
in  H"!  to  make  it  specifically  applicable  to  teachers.  The  Greek  Sidda-KaXos  in  the 
Graeco-Roman  world  was  not  a  solemnly  respectful  word,  such  as  the  Aramaic  1*1 . 
Ki//3tos  on  the  other  hand  would  carry  with  it  the  high  tone  of  respect  and  reverence 
which  the  oriental  meant  to  convey  when  he  addressed  his  teacher  as  "Rabbi." 
Moreover  the  word  1*1  is  often  translated  by  K^pios,  e.g.,  ^^^!0  H*]  = /ciJ/atos  rod  arparov 
=  (TTpaTrjyds. 

4i5;n'p,theLord;  ''I'M ,  my  Lord;  p^,  our  Lord. 

s  Cf.  also  J.  Weiss,  Christus,  "Es  ist  aber  nicht  zu  bezweifeln,  dass  schon  in  der 
judenchristlichen  Urgemeinde  der  Erhohte  'Herr,'  'unser  Herr'  genannt  worden 
ist"  (S.  24). 

398 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  73 

and  thorough  study  into  the  interworking  of  these  three  influences  in 
their  contribution  to  the  meaning  of  Kuptos.  Case's  presentation  is  of 
great  service  but  seems  to  leave  the  three  elements  too  much  detached. 
The  application  to  Jesus  of  the  title  ''lord"  (^112)  by  his  Aramaic- 
speaking  followers  would  begin  with  his  disciples  and  would  be  almost 
equal  to  the  title  StSao-KaXos,  the  Aramaic  word  being  used  frequently  (as 
also  "^21"! ,  rabbi)  as  a  title  of  respect.  This  would  extend  as  the  circle 
of  Christ's  followers  extended  and  as  their  respect  and  reverence  for 
him  increased.  When  they  recognized  in  him  their  Messiah,  and 
especially  after  his  resurrection  and  exaltation,  the  title  would  begin  to 
carry  an  enlarged  content.  At  this  stage  the  influence  of  the  Septuagint 
use  of  Kvptos  would  become  exerted  strongly  from  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  were  plainly  messianic.  This  would  be  the  period  of 
extension  beyond  the  Palestinian  Aramaic  usage  into  the  larger  extra- 
Palestinian  Greek  usage.  But  it  is  unlikely  that  the  transition  would 
be  from  the  Aramaic  !J<"17J  to  kvolos  as  it  was  used  in  the  extra-Palestinian 

T    T 

Graeco-Roman  world  with  which  Paul  was  familiar.  Rather  it  is  probable 
that  this  transition  was  mediated  by  the  thought  of  the  Aramaic 
X"l":2  or  "|*17J  passing  into  that  of  Kvptos  as  it  was  used  in  the  Septuagint 
for  ■'jIU^  .  The  two  were  closely  allied,  though  of  course  Kvptos  as  used 
in  the  Septuagint  covered  a  larger  field.  Then,  as  Case  says,^  owing  to 
their  enlarged  conception  of  Christ's  exaltation  and  mission  they  would 
apply  to  Christ  passages  of  the  Septuagint  where  KvpLos  was  used  of 
God^  without  however  intending  to  identify  Christ  with  Jehovah  in 
significance  and  glory. 

They  were  conscious  of  the  difference  between  God  and  Christ,  so 
that  they  increasingly  reserved  the  word  0e6<s  for  God  but  increasingly 
applied  the  word  Kvptos  to  Christ,  since  the  latter  was  a  broader  term 
and  though  also  applicable  to  God  was  not  so  lofty  and  distinctive  as 
®€os.  That  all  the  evangelists  should  change  the  Hebrew  and  Sep- 
tuagint "paths  of  our  God"  of  Mark  1:3  and  parallels  to  "his  paths" 
is  a  striking  instance  in  support  of  this.^ 

A  little  later  than  this  influence  of  the  Septuagint,  but  largely  parallel 
with  it,  would  come  the  influence  of  the  non-biblical  Greek  usage  of 
Kvpios.  This  non-biblical  usage,  though  it  cannot  be  thought  of  as 
originating  and  contributing  the  word  as  a  title  of  Jesus,  must  have  had 
considerable  influence  in  altering  and  enlarging  the  content  of  the  title 

^  Case,  op.  cit.,  p.  157. 

2  For  Itp']  or  D^^n'^ijl .  3  Case,  op,  cit.,  p.  158. 

399 


74  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

as  applied  to  Christ.  Deissmann  especially  exhibits  the  use  of  KvpLo<s 
in  the  Graeco-Roman  world/  Its  highest  content  in  Graeco-Roman 
usage  is  found  in  its  application  to  the  Roman  emperor  as  master  of  the 
world.  It  is  expressive  of  an  increasingly  high  regard  and  homage, 
though  not  of  the  veneration  expressed  by  ^eos  which  is  indicative 
in  the  Graeco-Roman  world  of  deification.  The  word  Kvptos  is  used 
of  Nero  in  an  Oxyrhynchus  papyrus  containing  a  letter  of  the  Egyptian 
Harmiusis  to  the  official  Papiskos  dated  July  24,  66  a.d.^  An  Egyptian 
document  of  54  a.d.  applies  the  title  to  Claudius.^ 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  this  was  a  common  title  of  the  Roman 
emperors  in  the  time  of  Paul,  and  Paul  perhaps  had  this  title  of  the 
emperors  in  mind  when  in  I  Cor.  8:5,  6  he  says  that  though  there  are 
many  "lords,"  yet  for  Christians  there  is  but  one  "Lord,"  Jesus  Christ. 
This  may  be  the  beginning  of  the  influence  upon  the  word  by  Graeco- 
Roman  usage  which,  when  developed,  issues  in  the  attitude  of  Polycarp 
(155  A.D.),  who,  when  the  Roman  officials,  Herod  and  Nicetes,  urge  him 
to  recant  by  saying,  "What  wrong  can  there  be  in  saying  'Caesar  [is] 
Lord'?"  refuses  and  prefers  death.-*  Case  holds  that  it  was  from  no 
reluctance  to  grant  the  title  Kvptos  to  Caesar  that  Polycarp  refused  to 
say  "Caesar  [is]  Lord,"  but  because  he  "refused  to  recognize  the 
supremacy  of  Caesar  as  compared  with  the  loyalty  due  to  Christ. "s 
But  this  is  not  a  natural  interpretation  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  another 
place  Polycarp  says,  "We  have  been  taught  to  pay  respect  in  every  way 
that  is  fitting — when  such  respect  is  not  hurtful  to  ourselves — to  powers 
and  authorities  appointed  by  God."^  Case  is  tempted  to  minimize  the 
significance  which  the  title  KvpLo<:  as  used  of  emperors  and  of  Christ 
had  acquired  by  this  time.  It  is  true  that  its  significance  is  not  equal 
to  that  of  Oeo's,  but  its  frequent  association  with  Oeos  in  emperor- 
worship  had  given  it  a  somewhat  higher  connotation  which  carried  with 
it  some  of  the  atmosphere  of  ^eos.  Had  the  Christian  conscience  of  the 
time  of  Polycarp  been  able  to  distinguish  between  Kvpto?  used  of  the 
moral  and  spiritual  lordship  of  Christ  and  Kvptos  used  of  the  temporal 
lordship  of  Caesar,  Polycarp  might  have  called  Caesar  "Lord."  There 
was  no  inherent  reason  why  the  "  supremacy  of  Caesar  "  and  the  "  loyalty 
due  to  Christ"  should  clash  except  just  this,  that  the  word  Kvptos  as  used 

^  Licht  vom  Osten,  S.  253  ff. 

2  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  The  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  II,  No.  246;  also  Licht  vom  Osten, 
S.  III. 

3  Licht  vom  Osten,  S.  256,  and  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  No.  37. 

4  Martyrium  Polycarpi,  8:2.  s  Ihid.,  p.  161.  <•  Martyr.  Polcarp.  10:2. 

400 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  75 

alike  of  Caesar  and  of  Christ  had  acquired  a  sort  of  divine  connotation, 
probably  from  its  associations  with  ^cos.  So  the  Christian  conscience, 
as  in  the  case  of  Polycarp,  could  not  ascribe  the  title  Kvptos  to  Caesar. 

From  the  beginnings  of  the  work  of  Paul  to  the  martyrdom  of 
Polycarp  is  a  period  of  a  hundred  years.  During  this  period  the  word 
KvpLos  gradually  developed  a  significance  approaching  that  of  ^cos, 
a  significance  which  tended  to  supersede  its  original  meaning  and 
precluded  its  being  applied  by  the  Christian  conscience  to  anyone  but 
Christ.  It  is  not  necessarily  contradictory  to  this  view  that  during  the 
same  period  the  "simpler  form  Kvptos  became  the  current  expression,"' 
and  that  its  "use  as  a  mere  name  tended  to  supplant  its  distinctively 
title  import."  However,  by  Polycarp's  time  its  use  as  a  mere  name  had 
not  actually  supplanted  its  title  import.  Polycarp  did  not  die  for  a  mere 
name.  That  the  "term  in  Greek  usage  early  became  little  more  than  a 
mere  proper  name  ....  employed  in  referring  to  him  [Christ]  in  his 
earthly  career  with  no  more  heightened  sense  than  was  attached  to  the 
name  Jesus"  is  quite  probable,  but  the  "heightened  sense"  lay  latent  in 
the  term  as  a  title  and  could  arise  at  any  moment  of  necessity  with 
marvelous  dynamic  force,  as  in  the  case  of  Polycarp. 

Case  well  says  that  "if  any  special  significance  associates  with  the 
word  when  applied  to  Jesus  it  is  his  person  rather  than  the  word  itself 
in  which  the  special  meaning  inheres."  From  the  Aramaic  beginnings 
when  the  word  }!C02  is  used  of  Jesus  by  his  followers  as  a  title  of  respect, 
due  to  his  influence  and  authority  as  a  teacher,  to  its  highest  significance 
as  a  title  which  cannot  be  given  to  any  other  than  Christ,  the  word 
KvpLos  expands  in  content  so  as  to  contain  and  express  what  Jesus  as 
Messiah  and  exalted  Savior  became  in  the  consciousness  and  experience 
of  his  followers,  viz.,  a  unique  authority  in  the  realm  of  the  moral  and 
spiritual,  the  realm  of  the  conscience  and  the  soul.^ 

Further,  it  is  necessary  to  investigate  the  use  of  Kvptos  in  Hebrews 
and  to  attempt  to  fit  it  into  its  place  in  the  general  development. 
The  instances  of  the  use  of  Kvpios  in  Hebrews  are  in  all  sixteen,  twelve 
being   instances  where  the  title  clearly  refers  to   God;3  four  being 

*  Case,  op.  cit.,  p.  i6i. 

2  Cf .  the  brief  but  interesting  statement  of  Johannes  Weiss  in  Christus  on  this 
title  "Der  Hen,"  S.  24-29. 

3 Ten  in  quotations,  7:2i  =  Ps.  110:4;  8:8=Jer.  31:31;  8:9=Jer.  31:32;  8:10= 
Jer.  31:33;  8:ii=Jer.  31:34;  io:i6  =  8:io=Jer.  31:33;  io:3o=Ps.  135:14;  12:5  = 
Prov.  3:11;  i2:6  =  Prov.  3:12;  i3:6  =  Ps.  118:6;  two  in  the  author's  own  usage,  8:2; 
12:14.    In  all  the  former,  the  word  corresponding  to  idpios  in  the  original  Hebrew 

is  T^^rr] . 

401 


76  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

instances  where  the  title  as  clearly  refers  to  Jesus  (i:io  =  Ps.  102:26;'  ? 
2 : 3 ;  7 :  14 ;  13:20).  The  title,  therefore,  occurs  quite  rarely  in  Hebrews  as  / 
compared  with  its  occurrences  in  Paul's  writings.  ^jf 

The  only  quotation  in  Hebrews  in  which  the  word  is  used  of  Christ, 
though  the  original  clearly  referred  to  God,  is  i :  io  =  Ps.  102 :  26.  Here 
it  seems  that  the  title  Kv/ote  misled  the  Septuagint  reader  and  also  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  into  the  view  that  the  psalm  was  messianic.^  This 
transference  may  have  been  made  easier  by  the  fact  that  some  parts  of 
the  psalm  (cf.  vss.  21,  22,  28)  have  a  touch  of  the  typical  messianic 
outlook.3  Kuenen  is  hardly  right  when  he  says  Kvptc  "has  been  adopted 
from  the  Greek  version  and  does  not  occur  in  the  original."  As  has  been 
said  before,  it  may  well  be  considered  a  translation  of  "^b^  in  the  second 
verse  before  (LXX,  vs.  24;  Heb.  vs.  25)  which  is  not  translated  in  the 
corresponding  Septuagint  verse.  Such  an  addition  would  not  be 
impossible,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  it  in  this  passage. 

In  any  case  Kuenen  seems  to  be  substantially  right  in  saying  that 
such  an  example  as  this  shows,  as  numerous  other  examples  in  the  New 
Testament  show,  that  by  this  time  the  Christians  had  come  to  look  upon 
Kvptos  as  a  title  of  the  Messiah.  When  they  had  taken  this  step  it  was 
an  easy  and  slight  advance  to  refer  many  passages  to  Jesus  as  Messiah 
where  Kvptos  denotes  not  the  Messiah  but  Jehovah  himself  and  where, 
as  here,  the  passages  have  little  if  any  messianic  import.  This  passage, 
therefore,  would  show  that  Hebrews  was  written  when  it  was  quite 
common  to  attribute  Kvptos  as  a  title  of  the  Messiah  to  Jesus  and  under 
this  title  to  apply  passages  to  Jesus  which,  before  the  increasing  domina- 
tion of  Jesus'  character  and  person,  had  been  understood  only  of  Gk)d. 

Heb.  2:3  contains  the  first  case  of  the  application  of  the  title  Kvpios 
to  Jesus  in  the  writer's  own  words,  "How  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect 
so  great  salvation  which,  having  at  the  first  been  spoken  by  the  Lord, 
was  confirmed  unto  us  by  those  who  heard  ?"  This  is  one  of  the  com- 
paratively few  but  significant  passages  (cf.  Heb.  5:7)  which  put  the 
writer  en  rapport  with  the  primitive  Christian  tradition.  Its  whole 
atmosphere  is  quite  distinct  from  that  which  characterizes  the  writer's 
conception  of  salvation  as  presented  by  him  in  the  rest  of  the  epistle.4 

^  Heb.  1:10  is  a  quotation  in  which  /ciJpie  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  added,  but 
where  more  probably  it  is  a  translation  of  *'bi|I  ,  occurring  in  vs.  24  of  the  Hebrew, 
but  not  translated  in  the  corresponding  verse  of  the  Septuagint. 

2  Cf .  Kuenen,  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  p.  468. 

3  Johnson,  The  Quotations  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old,  pp.  270  ff. 

4  Cf.  his  peculiar  conception  of  the  rest  of  God,  the  nature  of  faith,  the  High- 
Priesthood  of  Jesus. 

402 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  77 

And  yet  the  writer  himself  seems  not  to  be  conscious  of  the  fact  that  this 
salvation  which  he  represents  as  being  first  spoken  by  Jesus  must  have 
been  something  widely  different  from,  not  to  say  at  variance  with, 
the  salvation  which  the  writer  sets  forth  by  his  peculiar  Alexandrian 
exegetical  methods.  One  might  be  inclined  to  consider  this  phrase  as 
an  interpolation;  yet  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  rejecting  the 
phrase  except  this  contrast  between  the  salvation  which  Jesus  actually 
preached  and  the  salvation  which  the  writer  sets  forth  in  his  epistle. 
The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  not  conscious  of  the  sharp 
contrast  which  the  modern  man  sets  up  between  the  Jesus  of  history  and 
the  Christ  of  faith  and  experience.  To  the  writer  of  Hebrews  they 
were,  if  not  identical,  at  least  vitally  and  essentially  related  as  this 
passage  shows. 

The  fact  is  that  in  this  passage  (2:3,  4)  there  is  a  genuine  historical 
reminiscence  with  all  the  atmosphere  of  that  earlier  period  preceding 
and  immediately  succeeding  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus — the 
atmosphere  of  the  early  Christian  community.  The  title  tov  Kvpcov 
as  well  as  the  word  a-iaTrjpta  retain  here  a  primitive  color  and  content 
cognate  to  that  period.  The  title  tov  Kvpiov  has  here  a  meaning  largely 
divested  of  Septuagint  and  Graeco-Roman  influence.  It  carries  with  it 
a  high  religious  sense  and  denotes  the  Christ  as  the  recognized  leader, 
teacher  and  spiritual  guide  and  Savior  of  the  primitive  community  of 
Christians.  It  is  possibly  an  example  of  a  use  of  the  title  to  denote 
Jesus  in  his  earthly  career  which  Case  refers  to  as  quite  common.^  The 
author,  of  course,  takes  it  in  its  higher  significance. 

A  somewhat  similar  connotation  inheres  in  the  title  as  it  is  used  in 
7 :  14  and  13 :  20,  the  only  other  two  passages  of  the  author's  own  words 
in  which  the  title  is  used  of  Jesus.  In  7 :  14  the  title  is  used  in  the  strong 
spiritual  sense  of  religious  teacher  and  leader,  devotion  to  whom  gives 
a  consciousness  of  unity  (tJ/iawv)  to  Christians.  The  connotation  of 
Messiahship  is  assumed  and  carried  with  it,  though  the  idea  as  such  is 
not  expressed  by  it.  So  in  13 :  20,  where  the  associations  reveal  the  high 
significance  which  the  title  has  for  the  writer  and  his  readers.  Their 
Lord  is  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
the  one  whom  God  raised  from  the  dead.  But  the  title  itself  denotes 
unique  religious  control  and  supremacy  of  the  highest  type.  The 
addition  of  the  name  "Jesus"  gives  here  (13:20)  again  the  atmosphere 
of  the  earthly  life. 

The  writer  also  uses  Kvptos  of  God,  but  only  twice  in  his  own  words, 

^  Op.  ciL,  p.  260. 

403 


78-  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

viz.,  8:2,  where  he  speaks  of  God  as  having  established  the  true  taber- 
nacle, and  12 :  14  where  he  says  that  without  holiness  no  one  shall  see  the 
Lord.  In  both  cases  the  title  has  the  article  as  when  used  of  Jesus. 
The  writer's  regular  designation  of  God  is  ©eos,  and  it  is  perhaps 
somewhat  indicative  of  the  connotation  of  Kvpios  that  in  8:2,  where 
©cos  would  afiford  the  natural  contrast  to  avOpoiiro^,  o  KvpLo<5  should  be 
used  in  preference.  Biesenthal^  finds  in  it  a  hint  that  Hebrews  was 
written  originally  in  Hebrew,  as  otherwise  the  writer  would  certainly 
have  used  o  ©eog,  which  is  the  proper  contrast  to  ai/^/owTros.  This,  of 
course,  is  untenable;  but  this  particular  occurrence  may  fairly  be  taken 
as  indicative  of  how  even  at  this  time  the  title  kv/oios  carried  the 
®t6%  atmosphere  with  it  (cf.  13:3). 

To  sum  up  with  reference  to  Kvpios.    It  arose  in  Aramaic  OlSC\12) 

T    T 

as  the  title  regularly  applied  to  honored  and  influential  persons  and 
specifically  to  Jesus  as  religious  teacher.  When  the  gospel  came  to  be 
expressed  in  Greek,  especially  when  it  moved  out  into  the  Graeco- 
Roman  world,  the  title  Kvptos  was  used,  probably  at  first  suggested  by 
and  under  the  influence  of  the  Septuagint  usage,  where  the  title  was  used 
of  the  Messiah  as  well  as  of  Jehovah.  Under  influence  of  the  Septuagint 
usage  and  somewhat  later  under  the  influence  of  the  contrast  with 
Graeco-Roman  usage,  especially  in  emperor-worship,  the  content  of  the 
title  Kvpio<i  as  applied  to  Christ  was  extended  and  heightened.  Though 
one  might  naturally  expect  to  find  it,  there  is  no  evidence  in  Hebrews  of 
the  latter  influence.  The  word  has  on  the  one  hand  the  connotation  of 
the  earthly  Jesus  as  supreme  religious  teacher  and  Savior,  leader  and 
guide  in  the  realm  of  spirit  (7 :  14;  13 :  20).  On  the  other  hand  it  mani- 
fests the  heightening  of  Septuagint  influence  in  1:10  which  originally 
referred  to  God  (Jehovah)  and  was  not  distinctly  messianic.  It  is  not 
permissible,  however,  to  infer  from  this  passage  that  the  writer  of 
Hebrews  meant  to  place  Jesus  on  an  equality  with  God.  The  growing 
content  and  heightened  force  of  the  word  /cvpio?  sprang  originally  from 
the  increasing  impression  Jesus  made  upon  his  followers  in  their  faith 
and  experience  of  him,  especially  after  his  death  and  resurrection.  It  is 
hardly  proper  to  infer  anything  more  from  Kvptos  as  it  is  used  in  this 
epistle  than  the  supreme  significance  of  Jesus  in  the  realm  of  religion 
and  the  spirit. 

5.      THE   SON   (6   i;t6s) 

The  phrase  Son  of  Man  occurs  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  but  once 
(2:6)  in  a  quotation  from  Ps.  8:5.     It  does  not  refer  to  Jesus  (except 

^  Der  Apostel  Paulus  an  die  Hehrder,  S.  210. 

404 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  79 

indirectly),  being  used  both  in  the  original  and  in  the  quotation  as  a 
variant  for  "man,"  with  possibly  a  slight  increase  of  emphasis  on  the 
weakness  of  human  nature.  The  title  "  Son,"  on  the  other  hand,  occurs 
eleven  times  with  reference  to  Jesus  (1:2,  5,  8;  3:6;  4:14;  5:5,8;  6:6; 
7:3,  28;  10:29). 

Of  the  remaining  eleven  occurrences  of  the  word  "son"  in  the  epistle, 
two  (11:21  and  12:7b)  are  used  of  direct  physical  descent,  one  (11:24) 
of  sonship  by  adoption  in  the  human  sphere,  two  (7:5;  1 1 :  22)  of  indirect 
physical  descent;  five  other  occurrences^  exhibit  the  writer's  figurative 
religious  use  of  the  word  as  denoting  the  ethical  relation  of  filial  obedience 
and  divine  love  as  between  faithful  Christians  and  God.  These  last  five 
passages  indicate  in  all  probability  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  2:10 
where  the  followers  of  Christ  are  called  "sons."  The  word  is  not 
supernatural  or  metaphysical  in  its  content,  but  denotes  the  same 
ethico-religious  relation  to  God. 

a)  Development  of  the  conception  of  sonship. — In  the  development  of 
the  meaning  of  the  title  "Son,"  three  main  phases  are  readily  discerned: 
(i)  the  literal-physical,  (2)  the  figurative-ethical,  and  (3)  the  divine- 
metaphysical.  The  first  may  be  passed  over.  In  the  second  phase  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  use  the  word  "Son"  figuratively  to  denote 
a  special  relation  of  dignity  and  favor  based  upon  a  sympathetic  likeness 
of  character  whether  good  or  bad.  As  applied  to  a  relation  to  God  the 
whole  people  of  Israel  felt  themselves  to  be  the  favored  nation  in  especial 
relation  to  God  as  "  Son"  (Exod.  4:22,  23).^  The  king  as  representative 
of  the  whole  nation  was  called  Son  of  God.^  So  all  the  theocratic  kings 
came  to  be  called  Sons  of  God  in  this  special  sense,  until  finally  the  title  is 
applied  to  the  ideal  King  of  the  future,  the  Messiah,  at  least  in  passages 
which  were  interpreted  messianically  (Ps.  89:27,  28;  cf.  also  IV  Ezra 
7:28;  13 :  28) .4  This  is  the  Semitic  idea  which  never  fully  passes  into  the 
metaphysical,  though  in  later  Judaism  there  is  an  advance  in  this  direc- 
tion.s    The  Semitic  idea  "Son  of  God"  is  figurative,  ethical,  religious. 

It  is  clear  that  the  divine-metaphysical  meaning  of  the  phrase 
"Son  of  God"  is  found  within  the  New  Testament,  though  there  is 
much  dispute  and  uncertainty  as  to  specific  instances.     The  divine- 

'Heb.  12:5  (twice),  6,  7a,  8. 

2  Cf.  Holtzmann,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  I,  S.  265  f. 
3II  Sam.  7:14;  Ps.  2:7;  82:6;  89:27,28. 

4  WeUhausen,  5^mew  und  Vorarbeiten,  Heft  VI,  S.  219.     Gunkel  in  Kautzsch, 
Apocryphen  u.  Psendepigraphen,  II,  S.  344;  Volz,  Judische  Eschatologie,  S.  213. 
s  Volz,  op.  cit.,  sec.  35,  la,  S.  213. 

405 


80  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

metaphysical  meaning,  however,  is  clear  in  such  passages  as  Luke 
1-32-35,  as  also  in  Matthew.  How  much  earlier  than  Luke  and 
Matthew  the  metaphysical  use  is  to  be  seen  is  a  question  beset  with 
many  difl&culties.  But  it  is  plain  that  somewhere  between  the  historical 
theocratic  use  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  divine-metaphysical  use  of 
some  parts  of  the  New  Testament  this  radical  change  in  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase  "Son  of  God"  as  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  Jesus  was 
brought  about. 

Wernle  attributes  the  origin  of  this  metaphysical  use  to  Paul.^  He 
says  that  the  phrase  had  been  used  by  the  earliest  community,  but  "in 
a  very  harmless  sense,"  denoting  Jesus  as  "the  favorite  of  God,  his 
confidant,  knowing  his  ways  better  than  anyone  else."  But  it  may  be 
seriously  questioned  whether  Wernle  is  not  here  as  in  other  places  over- 
estimating the  influence  of  Paul  as  against  the  primitive  Christian  com- 
munity. This  view  apparently  forces  Wernle  into  holding  that  the 
reason  set  forth  by  the  Gospels  for  the  condemnation  of  Jesus  is  unhis- 
torical.  Wernle  says  that  the  accusation  of  blasphemy  was  the  result 
of  the  charge  of  orthodox  Jews  against  Christians  that  they  were  marring 
monotheism  by  making  a  second  God  out  of  Jesus. ^  It  is  hard  to  believe 
that  this  is  merely  a  reflection  of  the  debates  between  Christians  and 
Jews  in  the  postresurrection  period.  If  the  accusation  of  blasphemy 
is  not  historical,  no  formal  ground  of  condemnation  has  been  handed 
down  to  us.  Assuming  it  to  be  historical^  it  would  follow  that  the  Jewish 
leaders  and  rulers  at  least  felt  that  there  was  such  a  content  in  the 
phrase  "  Son  of  God,  "^  that  for  such  a  one  as  Jesus  to  claim  to  be  such  was 
supreme  blasphemy. 

But  does  this  of  necessity  imply  the  dogmatic  metaphysical  meaning 
of  the  phrase  in  the  thought  of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  ?  Holtzmann  takes 
the  view  that  it  does  not,s  holding  that  the  charge  of  blasphemy  is  fully 
accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  such  a  poor  and  powerless  peasant  of 
Galilee  should  lay  claim  to  such  a  high  official  position.  Dalman  seems 
to  waver  between  two  positions.  He  maintains^  that  "  the  assertion  of 
messianic  rank  could  not,  indeed,  in  itself  have  led  straightway  to  a 
death  sentence,"  holding  that  a  test  of  his  claim  according  to  b.  Sah. 
93  h.  would  in  that  case  have  been  the  necessary  step  before  sentence  of 
death.    This  is  not  allowing  sufficiently  for  the  pressing  circumstances, 

^  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  I,  p.  250.  '  Ibid.,  II,  p.  47. 

3  Cf.  Brandt,  Evangelische  Geschichte,  S.  81  f. 

4 Matt.  26:63;  Luke  22:70;  Mark  14:61,  "Son  of  the  Blessed." 

s  Neutest.  Theologie,  I,  S.  265  f.  ^  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  313. 

406 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  81 

and  moreover  no  test  was  needed:  the  thing  was  plain  enough.  He 
holds  that  the  blasphemy  consisted  in  the  words  he  added  about  the  Son 
of  Man,^  which  constituted  a  claim  to  share  in  God's  majesty.  Wrede's 
position^  is  by  all  means  the  more  natural  interpretation,  viz.,  that  there 
must  have  been  something  in  the  content  of  "  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed"  (Mark  14:61)  which  allied  it  distinctly  with  God  and  thus 
constituted  it  blasphemy.  Holtzmann's  emphasis  on  the  insignificance 
and  lowliness  of  Jesus  is  still  necessary  to  understand  properly  how  a 
conviction  of  blasphemy  could  be  attained  and  is  well  brought  out  in 
the  text  by  the  emphatic  cv  (Mark  14:61).  But  it  is  not  of  itself 
sufficient.  The  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,  must  in  the  thought  of 
the  rulers  have  been  ranked  with  God  in  some  unique  sense. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  Holtzmann's  view  does  not  go  far  enough  to 
explain  satisfactorily  such  blasphemy,  so  Wrede  perhaps  goes  too  far  in 
making  such  a  wide  separation  between  the  thought  of  the  writer  Mark 
and  the  thought  of  the  high  priest  and  Sanhedrin.3  To  maintain  that 
Mark  here  considers  the  title  *'Son  of  God"  as  "supernatural  and 
metaphysical"  is  to  say  what  is  altogether  probable.  But  to  say  that 
he  reads  the  meaning  back  ex  post  facto  into  the  mouth  of  the  high 
priest  is  to  destroy  the  historicity  of  the  narrative,  and  to  leave  us  no 
assigned  reason  for  the  sentence  of  death  upon  Jesus.  The  point  is  that 
if  blasphemy  in  some  form  is  the  historical  reason  for  the  death  of  Jesus 
then  between  the  Jewish  rulers'  conception  of  the  title  "the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God"  and  Mark's  conception  of  the  same  there  cannot  possibly 
be  such  a  wide  divergence  that  to  the  latter  it  was  blasphemy  but  to  the 
former  not.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  rulers  also  had 
Mark's  conception  of  a  "supernatural  and  metaphysical"  Messiah  in 
the  modern  sense,  but  it  does  mean  that  they  ranked  the  Messiah  with 
God  rather  more  than  with  men. 

This  is  supported  by  the  view  that  in  all  probability  most  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  Jesus  conceived  the  Messiah  as  supernatural  or  as  super- 
human. This  was  especially  true  in  apocalyptic  circles,  but  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  debate  as  to  how  widespread  these  apocalyptic  views  were.* 
Volz  well  notes  the  varied  elements  entering  into  the  view  of  the  Messiah 

'^  Dalman,  Christianity  and  Judaism,  p.  63. 

2  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimnis,  S.  74  f. 

3/6^.,  S.  75. 

-» Volz  says  (Jiidische  Eschatologie,  S.  212),  "In  apokalyptischen  Zirkeln  dagegen 
wird  das  eschatologische  drama  auf  einer  erhohten  Buhne  vorgefiihrt  und  in  ihrem 
iiberirdischen  Schauspiel  ist  auch  der  Messias  eine  transcendente  Gestalt." 

407 


82  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

at  this  time,  but  repeatedly  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  Messiah, 
both  as  Son  of  Man,  and,  though  rarely  and  late,  as  Son  of  God,  had 
at  the  time  of  Jesus  come  to  be  viewed  as  a  supernatural,  transcendent 
figure.^ 

This  view  certainly  makes  an  understanding  of  the  charge  of 
blasphemy  easier  and  fits  with  the  facts.  It  does  not  necessarily  show 
just  what  conception  Jesus  had  of  himself.  His  hesitation  and  different 
viewpoint  may  be  expressed  in  a-v  cwras  of  Matt.  26:64,*  which  was 
probably  his  real  answer  rather  than  the  iyut  d^i  of  Mark  14:62. 
But  it  indicates  that  even  in  the  time  of  Jesus  a  view  of  the  Messiah 
prevailed  which  made  it  blasphemy  for  anyone  to  claim  to  be  such  who 
did  not  do  the  marvelous  divine  works  of  wonder  which  the  Messiah  as 
Son  of  God  was  expected  to  do.  This  distinct  advance  upon  the  theo- 
cratic idea  of  the  Messiah  may  be  called  the  supernatural  or  superhuman 
idea  as  over  against  the  metaphysical,  which  may  have  been  introduced 
in  one  form  by  Paul,  in  another  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  in  still 
another  by  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

Jesus'  own  thought  as  to  the  meaning  of  Sonship  which  he  applied  to 
himself  is  a  problem  beset  with  many  difficulties.  He  is  not  represented 
as  using  the  full  phrase  "Son  of  God"  as  a  title  for  himself,  though  he 
frequently  puts  himself  in  the  relation  expressed  by  it — most  notably  in 
Matt.  11:27.  It  is  impossible  here  to  go  into  the  debate  upon  this 
striking  passage.^  It  seems  clear  that  the  accepted  reading  of  Matt. 
11:27  is  not  the  original  reading,  and  equally  clear  that  what  seems  to 
be  the  original  reading^  gives  a  meaning  more  cognate  with  the  immediate 
context,  less  Johannine,  less  theological  and  mystical,  and  more  in  line 
with  the  general  synoptic  teaching.  E.  F.  Scotts  sums  up  the  reliable 
results  perhaps  with  too  severe  a  brevity.     The  passage  remains  a 

^  Judische  Eschatologie  {passim),  especially  S.  211  f.;  also  sec.  21;  sec.  35,  "Es 
ist  ein  welter  Weg  von  dem  nationalen  menschlichen  Davidssohn  zu  dem  ewigen  Him" 
melsmenschen  und  wir  konnen  nicht  annehmen,  dass  der  Uebergang  sich  in  der  Form 
eines  allmahlichen  innerlichen  Fortschreitens  vollzogen  hatte;  vielmehr  setzt  mit  der 
Vorstdlung  vom  transcendentem  Himmelsmenschen  etwas  Neues  ein." 

» Jour.  Bib.  Lit.,  XIII,  45. 

i  See  Schmiedel,  "Die  Johannische  Stelle  in  Matthaus  und  Lucas  und  das  Messias- 
bewusstsein  Jesu,"  Protestantische  Monatshefte,  1900,  S.  i;  Johannes  Weiss,  Die 
Schriften  des  N.  Testaments,  I,  S.  321;  Harnack,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  272-310, 
where  he  gives  a  full  list  of  references  to  discussions. 

4  Harnack,  Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  295:  irdvra  fwi  irapebbdit)  virb  rod  irarpds,  Kal 
oiSeli  iyv(a  rbv  iraripa  [vel.  rls  iffriv  6  var^p]  el  fx^  6  vlbi  Kal  (^  Slp  6  vlbi  avoKOLKCnj/'^. 

s  "An  Exegetical  Study  of  Matt,  ii:  25-30,"  Biblical  World,  March,  1910. 

408 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  83 

Strong  and  beautiful  expression  of  Jesus'  consciousness'  of  an  altogether 
unique  relation  to  God  which  is  not  exhausted  by  being  described  as 
intellectual  only,*  but  grips  the  deeper  reaches  of  personality  involving 
the  religious  and  moral.^  Beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  it  was  through 
this  unique  consciousness  of  Sonship,  to  which  the  high  priest  and  the 
Sanhedrin  were  blind,  that  Jesus  came  to  accept  the  title  of  Messiah 
which  in  its  official  theocratic  content  with  the  addition  of  the  super- 
natural was  in  a  sense  understood  by  the  rulers.^ 

These  two  aspects  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "Son  of  God,"  viz., 
the  religio-moral  use  of  Jesus  and  the  theocratic  semi-supernatural  use 
of  the  Jews  blend  and,  under  the  influence  of  Greek  thought  and  philoso- 
phy, form  the  later  divine-metaphysical  idea  of  Sonship,  which  is  found 
in  its  initial  stages  in  Paul  and  more  fully  developed  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  There  seems  to  be  considerable  proba- 
bility for  Sanday's  views  (in  opposition  to  Schmidt's^)  that  this  turn 
toward  the  metaphysical  interpretation  under  the  influence  of  Greek 
thought  goes  back  at  least  to  Paul  and  possibly  to  the  first  Jerusalem 
community.  But  it  may  have  taken  considerable  time  for  the  clear-cut 
Greek  metaphysical  view  to  crystallize.  Its  stages  may  be  seen  in  the 
comparatively  simple  Christology  of  the  speeches  in  the  first  chapters  of 
Acts  where  Jesus  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  not  only  Christ  and  Lord, 
but  "servant"  (Greek  iraTs),  which  to  Greeks  meant  "child,"  "son." 
This  was  further  defined  by  Paul  in  reference  to  the  resurrection  by 

^  Cf.  N.  Schmidt,  art.  "Son  of  God,"  Enc.  Bib.,  sec.  12;  Pfleiderer,  Urch.,  I,  S. 
445!.;  Brandt,  Evangelische  Geschichte,  p.  561.  Probably  Johannes  Weiss  does  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  emended  form  of  the  saying  cannot  go  back  to  Jesus:  "Aber  so 
wie  uns  dieser  (in  der  2.  Strophe  Matt.  11:27)  iiberliefert  ist  bietet  er  uns  schwerlich 
ein  Wort  Jesu,  sondern  eher  ein  Stiick  Gemeindetheologie." 

=»Hamack,  What  Is  Christianity?  p.  128:  "Rightly  understood  the  name  of  Son 
means  nothing  but  the  knowledge  of  God."  This  is  either  true  or  not  true  accord- 
ing as  the  wide  or  narrow  meaning  is  given  to  the  word  "knowledge." 

3  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theologie,  I,  S.  267:  "die  ungehemmte  Lebensgemeinschaft 

mit  Gott,  die  unverkiimmerte  Beriihrung  mit  dem  Gottlichen Was  aber 

wir  auf  dem  langen  Wege  der  Reflexion  nachzubilden  versuchen,  das  taucht  fiir  den 
religiosen  Genius  als  unvermittelte  und  ungebrochene  Ofifenbarung  aus  den  Tiefen, 
seines  Gemuthslebens  auf.  Und  zwar  Letzteres  so,  dass  das  Sohnesbewusstsein  sich 
entsprechend  der  sittlichen  AusfuUung  der  Gottesidee,  die  in  dem  Vaternamen  liegt, 
auch  durchaus  sittlich  bestimmt  und  bedingt  fand.  Der  religiose  Genius  war  zugleich 
ein  sittlicher  Genius." 

4  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theologie,  I,  S.  271;  Hamack,  Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  301. 
s  The  Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research,  pp.  130  f. 

«  Art.  "Son  of  God,"  Enc.  Bib.,  sec.  22. 

409 


84  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

which  Jesus  was  determined  the  Son  of  God  with  power  (Rom.  1:4). 
Later  the  thought  was  carried  back  to  the  transfiguration  or  to  the 
baptism  (Mark  9:7  and  parallels;  Mark  i:ii  and  parallels),  and  still 
later  to  the  birth  in  the  infancy-stories  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The 
Fourth  Gospel  carried  it  back  still  farther  and  gave  the  impetus  to  the 
fuller  metaphysical  interpretation  of  the  creeds. 

From  this  passage  in  Mark  14:62  it  is  clear  that  for  the  author  at 
least  the  three  titles,  Son  of  God,  Son  of  Man,  and  Messiah  become  practi- 
cally synonymous.  It  would  be  going  too  far  to  say  that  the  two  titles 
**  Son  of  God  "  and  "  Son  of  Man  "  were  merely  synonyms  for  "  Messiah" ; 
this  would  be  to  disregard  the  various  shades  of  meaning  which  developed 
in  the  historical  use  of  the  terms.  In  their  origin  and  original  content  at 
least  they  were  quite  distinct,  but  at  the  time  of  Mark's  writing  they 
had  converged  and  almost  focused  in  one  common  meaning. 

b)  Use  of  the  title  ''Son^'  in  Hebrews. — It  has  been  seen  above  that 
the  writer  of  Hebrews  has  the  distinctly  religious  Semitic  use  of  the  word 
"son"  (12:8),  as  applied  to  Christians.  He  has  also  the  thought  of 
God  as  father  of  all  spirit  beings,  men  included  (12:9).  He  does  not, 
however,  use  the  term  "son"  or  "sons"  of  man  or  men  in  general. 
As  applied  to  Jesus  there  are  in  all  eleven  passages  where  the  title  "Son" 
or  "Son  of  God"  occurs;  these  must  receive  careful  attention. 

Passing  over  for  the  present  the  first  case  of  the  use  of  vlos  as 
applied  to  Christ  (1:2),  the  next  case  is  found  in  the  familiar  quotation 
of  Ps.  2:7  in  1:5,  "Thou  art  my  Son;  today  have  I  begotten  thee," 
immediately  followed  by  the  quotation  from  II  Sam.  7:14,  "I  shall  be 
to  him  a  father  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  It  is  not  necessary  here 
to  decide  whether  the  king  whose  installation  was  celebrated  in  the 
original  psalm  was  David  or  Solomon  or  some  other. ^  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  show  in  what  sense  or  in  what  way  the  psalm  was  referred  to  the 
ideal  future  King,  the  Messiah.^  It  is  enough  to  realize  that  the  passage 
originally  had  a  definite  reference  to  a  historic  king  of  Israel  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  familiar  Semitic  idea  (Jer.  2:27),  was  recognized,  declared, 
and  adopted  as  God's  Son  when  he  was  installed  as  king  over  God's 
people;  that  later  it  became  by  common  consent  referred  to  the  Messiah,^ 
and  in  this  way  the  writer  of  the  Hebrews  uses  it  of  Jesus. 

But  this  throws  the  diflSculty  into  the  question  as  to  how  the  writer 

*  Cf.  Bleek,  Commentar  uber  den  Hebraer- Brief,  I,  110  f ;  Bathgen,  DiePscUmen,  S. 
3;  Briggs,  Psalms,  I,  p.  12. 
2  Bleek,  op.  ciL,  p.  iii  f. 

3Acts4:25,  26;  13:33;  Rev.  2:27;  12:5;  Heb.  5:5. 

410 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  85 

conceives  this  appellation,  which  originally  was  referred  to  a  definite  point 
of  time,  to  be  applied  to  Christ  whom  he  clearly  considers  to  be  pre- 
existent.  Has  the  reference  to  a  specific  point  of  time  which  is  so 
explicitly  brought  out  by  a-rjfiepov  quite  faded  from  his  thought  so  that  he 
means  a-rjfiepov  to  denote  eternity  ?  Such  a  meaning,  though  strange  to 
the  original  (Ps.  2:7),  is  not  strange  to  Alexandrian  usage,  and  this  may 
be  another  point  of  contact  between  the  author  and  Philo.^  An  interest- 
ing and  suggestive  use  of  the  word  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus 
which  seems  to  mark  an  advance  in  effort  at  precision  of  thought,  or 
perhaps  rather  an  effort  to  explain  that  which  in  Hebrews  was  left 
unexplained  and  puzzling. ^  This  quotation  would  seem  to  be  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  passage  so  frequently  upon  the  lips  of  primitive  Chris- 
tians with  regard  to  Jesus  as  Messiah  (Ps.  2:7).  It  is  further  an  express 
statement  of  what  lies  latent  in  the  thought  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews. 
For  him  too  Christ  was  6  del  [wv],  but  it  would  seem  that  in  some  way 
he  conceived  of  him  as  at  some  time  constituted  or  declared  "Son." 
For  <rij/xepov  in  Diognetus  cannot  mean  "today"  of  the  time  at  which 
the  author  is  writing.  Nor  can  it  be  quite  equal  to  det,  from  which  it  is 
so  clearly  distinguished  by  a  contrast.  The  word  stands  between  these 
two  meanings  and  denotes  a  specific  point  of  time  at  which  he  who  was 
forever,  became  "Son." 

This,  with  less  distinctness,  is  the  conception  of  the  writer  to  the 
Hebrews,  rather  than  the  Philo  usage  of  the  word  denoting  "eternity." 
For  in  his  use  of  the  quotation  he  shows  that  in  his  conception  God 
might  possibly  have  so  addressed  one  of  the  angels  who  with  Christ  were 
pre-existent  and  coexistent  spirit  beings.^  Thus  addressing  the  pre- 
existent  Christ,  the  writer  seems  from  one  point  of  view  to  abandon 
the  natural  and  necessary  meaning  of  the  words,  especially  of  cny/Acpov 
yeyevvrfnaj  SO  as  either  to  imply  that  the  word  aijixepov  is  equivalent 
to  "eternity"  or  to  leave  the  words  without  any  point  or  meaning  in 
their  new  context.  From  another  point  of  view,  by  the  reference  to  the 
pre-existent  angels  as  over  against  the  pre-existent  Christ,  he  seems  to 
imply  that  this  pre-existent  Christ  rather  than  any  one  of  the  angels 

^  Cf.  Philo,  De  Fuga,  §11  (Cohn  ed.,  Ill,  p.  122)  (ri^fiepov  5'  iarlv  6  dir^paros  Kal 
dSie^irriTos  alibv  fitjpwv  yhp  Kal  ipiavruv  Kal  (rvvdXus  xP^vtav  irepiodoi  Sdyfiara  dvOpdiruv 
elfflv  dpidfibv  iKT€Tiix7}K6T<av'  rb  5'  d\l/€v8h  SvofM  alQvos  ij  a-fifjuepov.  Leg.  Alleg.,  Ill,  8, 
(Cohn  ed.,  I,  p.  ii8)    ?ws  r^s  o-^fiepov  ^M^/aas,  rovria-rip  del. 

'Diognetus,  11:4,  5:  OCtos  6  dir'  dpxvh  o  Kaivbs  <f}av€ls  Kal  iraXaibs  cvpedels  Kal 
vdrrore  p4os  iv  &yl<ap  Kapdlais  yeppdfjxpos.    of/roi  6  def,  6  trfipspov  vlbs  \oyi<r6elSf  irrX. 

*  Heb.  1:5:  "For  to  what  one  of  the  angels  did  he  ever  say.  Thou  art  my  son?"  etc. 

411 


Ob  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

was  at  some  specific  time  thus  addressed  and  by  this  means  constituted 
or  given  the  status  and  dignity  of  **Son"  by  adoption. 

The  same  uncertainty  or  double  point  of  view  is  seen  in  Heb.  5:5, 
where  the  same  passage  is  quoted  but  quoted  this  time  in  reference  to 
Christ's  becoming  High  Priest.  It  has  been  already  noticed  that  the 
author  apparently  does  not  specify  when  Christ  entered  upon  his  High- 
Priestly  office.  But  this  passage  (vss.  5,  6)  indicates  nevertheless  that 
the  author  conceives  of  Christ  not  as  having  been  eternally  High  Priest 
but  as  at  some  specific  time  having  become  or  having  been  declared  and 
constituted  High  Priest.  And  in  these  verses  the  declaration  of  High- 
Priesthood  is  put  upon  a  par  (Ka^a>s)  with  the  declaration  of  Sonship. 
Why  the  two — Sonship  and  Priesthood — are  here  so  closely  associated 
it  is  hard  to  tell  unless  in  some  way  the  author  conceived  of  the  two  as 
very  similar  in  their  significance  and  possibly  identical  in  point  of  time. 
This  specific  time  of  inception,  however,  is  not  mentioned  by  the  writer 
either  for  the  Sonship  or  for  the  Priesthood.  But  at  least  the  natural 
or  face  value  of  the  language  he  uses  in  these  two  passages  (1:5;  5:5,6) 
makes  such  an  interpretation  natural,  indeed  almost  necessary. 

Further  reference  will  be  made  to  this  view  that  the  writer,  even 
though  vaguely  and  almost  inconsistently,  had  in  mind  a  specific  time 
at  which  Christ  was  constituted  Son  and  High  Priest.  It  may  be  well 
here  to  show  briefly  how  this  may  be  in  perfect  line  with  the  developing 
thought  of  the  primitive  church,  especially  upon  the  question  of  Sonship. 
The  simplicity  of  the  Christology  of  the  first  few  chapters  of  Acts 
has  been  recognized  as  indicating  that  these  chapters  in  all  probability 
reflect  with  comparative  fidelity  the  actual  thought  in  the  primitive 
community  shortly  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.^  Now  the  primitive 
community  evidently  used  Ps.  2*  very  largely  and  universally  in  their 

^  Cf.  Schmiedel,  art.  "Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  Enc.  Bib.,  sec.  14:  "it  is  hardly 
possible  not  to  believe  that  this  Christology  of  the  speeches  of  Peter  must  have  come 
from  a  primitive  source."  Cf.  Harnack's  statement  from  a  somewhat  different 
point  of  view,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  190 :  "Of  course  what  is  given  us  even  here 
is  never  tradition  absolutely  primitive  and  unaffected  by  legend;  it  is  rather  historical 
tradition  handed  down  by  enthusiasts."  Cf.  Conclusion,  p.  298:  "It  is  not  only, 
taken  as  a  whole,  a  genuinely  historical  work,  but  even  in  the  majority  of  its  details  it 
is  trustworthy.  Except  for  a  few  panegyric  aberrations  in  the  direction  of  the  Primi- 
tive Community,  it  follows  no  bias  that  distorts  its  representation  of  the  actual  course 
of  events."  The  aberrations  Harnack  speaks  of,  even  if  granted  for  these  early 
chapters,  do  not  destroy  their  reliability  as  a  source  for  the  thought  of  the  Primitive 
Community.  What  can  be  considered  as  the  actual  facts  out  of  the  so-called  miracu- 
lous or  supernatural  stories  is  of  minor  importance  here. 

» And  the  related  O.T.  passages,  II  Sam.  7:12-14;  Ps.  89. 

412 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO  THE  HEBREWS  87 

effort  to  express  the  significance  of  Jesus  and  their  conception  of  his 
person.  Acts  2:32-36  refers  the  inception  of  the  Messiahship  and 
Lordship  of  Jesus  very  pointedly  to  the  exaltation  which  was  a  result  of 
the  resurrection.  This  great  enthronement  as  Lord  and  Christ  would 
act  in  two  ways  upon  the  thought  of  primitive  Christians.  It  would 
clarify  and  intensify  whatever  tremulous  thoughts  some  of  them  had  had 
of  Jesus  as  Messiah  before  his  death  and  resurrection  and  it  would  lead 
them  in  addition  to  carry  the  developing  and  enlarging  thought  of  the 
later  time  back  into  the  earlier  period.  So  the  baptism  experience 
loomed  larger  as  the  anointing  of  this  Jesus  who  was  to  be  Messiah  and 
King  (Acts  4:27,  and  especially  10:38  which  no  doubt  referred  directly 
to  the  baptism).  In  this  primitive  Christology  the  word  that  plays  the 
largest  part  as  a  designation  of  Christ  is  irats  Btov  (3:13,  26;  4:27,  30). 
This  word,  which  may  mean  "servant"  or  "child,"  is  no  doubt  later 
supplanted  by  vlos,  and  even  in  Acts,  though  not  in  the  earlier  chapters, 
the  quotation  of  Ps.  2:7  which  has  been  under  consideration  in  Heb. 
1:5;  5:5  is  used  and  the  Sonship  of  Christ  is  directly  connected  with 
the  resurrection  (Acts  13:33).  This  may  indicate  a  slight  advance  on  a 
somewhat  earlier  conception.^  It  is  true  that  the  words  (Acts  13:33) 
are  in  a  speech  made  by  Paul.  But  apart  from  the  nature  of  the  speeches 
in  Acts',  it  is  clear  that  the  Christology  of  the  speech  does  not  depart 
very  far  from  the  Christology  of  the  primitive  community,  and  yet  in 
one  or  two  respects  seems  to  approach  Paul  (Acts  13: 23  =  Rom.  1:32), 
for  Paul  too  (Rom.  i :  4)  has  a  modified  form  of  the  thought  that  Christ 
was  declared  or  constituted  "Son  of  God"  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.3  Perhaps  Paul's  thought  was  that  Christ,  who  was  eternally  Son, 
was  publicly  and  pK)werfully  manifested  to  be  such  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  If  this  was  his  thought  he  must  be  considered  as  having 
advanced  more  considerably  upon  the  primitive  conception  and  then 
would  have  approached  closely  to  the  writer  of  Hebrews.    It  may  be,  all 

» Cf .  Harnack,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  195  f .  Harnack  considers  1 2 :  25 — 15 :  35 
a  separate  section  which  he  calls  Antiochean  and  considers  trustworthy  also.  "We 
find  in  the  source  nothing  that  demands  a  late  date  of  composition,  while  the  excellent 
accounts  concerning  Jerusalem  and  Stephen,  and  the  special  veneration  shown  to 
Barnabas,  lead  us  to  conclude  that  we  have  here  a  writing  of  high  antiquity." 

2  Cf.  Schmiedel,  art.  "Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  Enc.  Bib.,  sec.  14:  Headlam,  art. 
"Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  Hastings'  Bib.  Diet.,  I,  p.  33. 

3  Cf.  Jiilicher,  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  II,  S.  221.  Others  to  be  sure 
lay  the  emphasis  on  "with  power,"  thus  reconciling  the  primitive  conception  that 
Christ  was  constituted  Messiah  and  Son  by  the  resurrection  with  the  thought  of  the 
pre-existent  Christ  as  Son. 

413 


88  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STI/DIES 

things  considered,  that  this  is  the  more  natural  and  likely  view  to 
attribute  to  Paul.  But  his  advance,  however  great,  has  not  obliterated 
the  mark  of  the  primitive  view,  which  was  that  Jesus  was  constituted 
Messiah,  Lord,  and  Son  by  the  resurrection  and  exaltation. 

The  enlarging  conception  of  Jesus  as  Son  of  God  continued  to  press 
back  the  inception  of  Sonship.  The  next  stage  was  that  of  the  miracu- 
lous conception,  in  which  the  Semitic  idea  of  Sonship  passed  over  into 
the  Greek  metaphysical  idea  (Matt,  i :  20;  Luke  1:32). 

But  even  this  was  not  sufficient.  The  idea  of  pre-existence  emerged 
very  early — indeed  in  the  majority  of  Jewish  views  it  was  predicated  of 
the  Messiah.^  At  first  the  thought  probably  was  of  an  ideal  pre-existence 
of  the  Messiah,  just  as  in  the  case  of  Wisdom  (Prov.  8: 22  ff.)  and  of  the 
Son  of  Man  (Volz,  op.  ciL,  S.  215,  217  f.).  But  the  tendency  was 
increasingly  strong  to  make  this  pre-existence  real  and  active.  This  was 
done  when  the  ideas  of  Messiah,  Son  of  Man,  and  Son  of  God  were  to  a 
large  extent  fused  with  the  Greek  concept  of  the  Logos.  The  terms 
*'Son  of  Man"  and  "Christ"  tended  to  pass  out  of  use,  owing  to  Greek 
influence.  The  term  Logos  did  not  appeal  to  the  early  church,  though 
later  on  the  lips  of  the  early  Greek  apologists  (cf .  Justin  Martyr,  passim) 
it  became  common  as  a  designation  for  Christ.  The  strong  religious 
consciousness  of  the  later  primitive  church  preferred  the  term  Son  of 
God  or  Son,  and  the  inception  of  this  Sonship  was  by  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  who  says  nothing  of  the  virgin  birth,  carried  back  to  the 
beginning  (John  1:2,  18).  It  should  still  be  carefully  noted,  however, 
that  within  the  New  Testament  period  there  is  apparently  a  reluctance 
to  apply  the  word  *'Son"  to  this  pre-existent  being  as  such.  So  much 
so  that  within  a  number  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  it  has  been 
recognized  as  a  difficult  question  whether  the  word  "Son"  is  at  all  used 
of  the  pre-existent  Christ.    This  is  especially  true  of  Hebrews.^ 

This  reluctance  to  apply  the  highest  title  "Son,"  "Son  of  God"  to 
the  pre-existent  Christ  as  such  will  be  referred  to  again.    It  is  significant 

I  Cf.  Volz,  Jiidische  Eschatologie,  S.  217. 

'  Macintosh,  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (i  vol.),  art.  "Person  of  Christ," 
IV,  sec.  3,  "A  very  difl&cult  question  is  whether  in  this  epistle  'Son'  is  applied  to  the 

preincaraate  One  or  to  the  incarnate  Christ  only No  one  can  doubt  that  the 

writer's  mind  starts  from  Christ  the  Son  as  known  in  history  and  in  his  exaltation,  and 
holds  these  reveahng  facts  steadily  in  the  foreground  of  his  thought;  but  does  he  go 
farther  back,  and  carry  this  Sonship  into  the  pre-existent  state  ?";  cf .  A.  B.  Davidson, 
Hebrews y  note  on  the  "Son,"  pp.  73  ff.  Also  Bruce,  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  pp.  440  f., 
"The  same  interest,  that  of  magnifying  the  sacrifice,  requires  the  Sonship  to  be  of 
older  date  than  the  life  on  earth." 

414 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  89 

here  as  indicating  that  when  the  Christians  began  to  identify  Christ 
with  the  Logos,  thus  making  him,  even  if  somewhat  vaguely,  eternal, 
the  words  of  Ps.  2:7,  especially  (rrip^tpov  yeyewrjKo.  ae,  tended  to  lose 
their  specific  reference  to  any  definite  inception  of  Sonship.  Their 
adoptive  significance  was  lost,  the  famous  christological  watchword  of 
the  primitive  community  only  caused  confusion,  till  finally  the  word 
a-yjfjiepov  was  interpreted  as  denoting  the  timeless  "today"  of  God  in 
somewhat  the  same  way  as  a  day  of  God  was  said  to  be  a  thousand  years. 

The  period  of  confusion  is  exhibited  in  the  author  of  Hebrews 
(i  •  5 ;  5  •  5) •  For  it  is  clear  now,  though  it  was  not  so  clear  to  the  author, 
that  the  words  are  hardly  fitting  to  his  thought  of  Christ.  For  the 
epistle  plainly  predicates  a  real  and  an  active  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
even  if  the  author  hesitates  to  apply  the  word  "Son"  to  him  as  pre- 
existent  (10:5).  But  he  fails  to  give  any  point  of  time  to  which  the 
words  of  Ps.  2:7  could  apply,  though  the  words  in  their  proper  meaning 
require  such  a  time. 

That  later  writers  felt  the  irrelevancy  of  these  words  as  used  of  the 
Logos  or  the  eternal  Christ,  and  sought  to  clear  up  the  confusion  caused 
by  them,  is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  they  sometimes  explained  them. 
Clement  of  Rome^  uses  this  quotation  (Ps.  2:7),  but  in  him  the  words 
have  lost  their  specific  reference  more  than  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Clement  says,  "But  of  his  Son  the  Master  said  thus:  'Thou  art  my  Son, 
I  this  day  have  begotten  thee.  Ask  of  me,' "  etc.  He  speaks  of  the  one 
to  whom  these  words  are  said  as  already  "Son,"  and  does  not  pause 
to  explain. 

A  more  suggestive  use  is  found  in  Justin  Martyr.*  In  this  passage 
the  fundamental  thing  to  be  noticed  is  not  the  precise  meaning  of  Justin, 
about  which  there  may  be  some  doubt.^    It  is  rather  the  fact  that  he 

»  Clement,  /  Ep.  ad  Cor.,  chap.  36. 

^Dialog.  C.  88,  p.  316  C,  D:  rb  irvev/jLa  otv  t6  &yiov  Kal  5iA  roiis  dvdpdirovs,  ws 
'jrpo4(f>ii]v,  iv  cfSci  ircpto-Tcpas  iir^TTTi]  a^v,  Kal  <f>(avij  iK  tG>v  ovpavQv  &fjia  i\rfK6d€t 
■^Tts  Kal  dioL  Aavtd  Xeyofxivrj,  ws  dird  irpocrdtrov  a&rov  \4'yovtos  Sirep  aitrip  diro  rod 
irarphs  e/xeXXc  X^yeaOai  Tl6s  fiov  el  <riJ,  iy<j)  a'^fx.epov  yeyivvqKi.  <rc-  r&re  y4v€(Tiv  airov 
\iy(av  ylveffdai  rots  avOpibirois,  i^  6tov  ij  yvuxns  avrov  e/icXXe  yiveffdai.  Cf .  Explanation 
of  Methodius:  rb  8^  *E7tt>  ff'tjixepov  yeyivtniKd  <re,  6ri  irpobvra  ijSr)  irpb  tQp  aldvuv  iv 
ToTi  oiipavoh  i^ovXi^driv  Kal  ry  Kbap-ff  yevpijffai,  6  8iJ  iffri,  irpoffdkv  dyvoxo^fjxvov 
yvujpLaai.  Cf.  also  other  quotations  and  explanations  as  given  by  Otto  in  his  edition 
of  Justin  Martyr,  Dialogue,  chap.  88. 

3  The  sentence  is  loosely  formed.  The  participle  Xiyuv  is  anacoluthic;  gram- 
matically it  ought  to  agree  with  irvevpua  or  <t><av^  but  the  real  meaning  predominates 
and  the  form  X^wj*  is  used  with  the  feeling  that  "God"  is  the  subject,  i.e.,  as  if 

415 


90  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

feels  the  irrelevancy  of  this  quotation  and  is  forced  into  an  explanation 
of  it  which  refers  the  o-iyftcpov  to  some  specific  time  in  the  future,  viz., 
the  time  of  the  yvwo-ts  or  revelation  of  Christ,  whether  this  yvwo-t?  be 
interpreted  historically  of  Jesus'  coming  into  the  world^  or  mystically, 
that  is,  spiritually.  That  Justin  should  be  forced  to  make  this  explana- 
tion shows  how  the  original  meaning  and  face  value  of  the  words  per- 
sisted. For  Justin  does  not  hesitate  to  call  Christ  "God."^  And, 
indeed,  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  yei/eo-ts  of  Christ  of  which 
Justin  speaks  in  explaining  a-T^fxepov  yeycVn/Ka  is  considered  by  him  as 
constituting  Christ  *'Son."  Justin  would  consider  and  call  Christ 
eternally  Logos  and  Son.  The  face  value  of  the  words  ai^fxepov  yeyevvrjKa 
is  satisfied  by  an  explanation  of  the  yevea-is  at  a  specific  time  as  the 
revelation  of  this  hitherto  hidden  Son.  But  this  shows  that  even  in 
Justin  Martyr  the  atmosphere  of  the  historical  Jesus  still  clings  to  the 
title  "Son.'^ 

In  the  same  line  of  development,  there  is  found  a  puzzling  passage 
in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  {Ep.  to  Diognetus,  chap,  ii).^  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  Lightfoot  is  rights  in  translating  "He,  I  say,  who  is 
eternal,  who  today  was  accounted  a  son,"  as  against  the  translation  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,^  "This  is  He  who,  being  from  everlasting,  is 
today  called  the  Son."  That  is,  the  word  a-rjiMcpov  does  not  have  the 
meaning  "at  the  present  time,"  but  is  almost  certainly  a  reminiscence  of 
the  common  quotation  of  Ps.  2:7.  But  this  does  not  necessarily  annul 
the  suggestiveness  of  the  passage  as  a  parallel  to  that  of  Justin.    In  fact 

Swep  ain^  avb  toO  Trarpbs  efJLeWe  \4y€<rdai  were  active.  The  participle  \4yovTos 
would  more  naturally  be  taken  as  agreeing  with  airov  (Christ),  and  may  indeed  be 
so  taken.  But  the  sense  is  better  if  Xiyovros  is  referred  back  to  Aavtd.  c/icXXe  in 
both  cases  denotes  a  future-to-a-past  point  of  view.  t6t€  is  emphatic  and  proleptic 
pointing  forward  to  i^  8tov  which  may  mean  either  "from  which  [time]"  or  "at 
which  [time]."  In  its  first  occurrence  ylvecrdat  stands  for  a  general  present.  One  would 
expect  yev^ffeffdai  but  the  writer  allows  his  own  point  of  time,  viz.,  the  time  of 
writing,  to  intrude  when  he  should  not.  He  returns  to  the  future-to-a-past  point 
of  view  in  e/xeXXc  ylveadai. 

'  Justin  may  have  the  miraculous  conception  in  mind  much  as  in  the  previous  part 
of  the  sentence  he  speaks  of  Jesus  as  being  accounted  the  son  of  Joseph,  the  carpenter: 
Kal  vofxi^ofx^pov  *I(i)a^(f>  rod  riKTovos  vlov  vird.px^'-v. 

2  Cf.  De  Resurrectione,  10.  If  this  reading  6  deds  is  refused  (cf.  Otto,  De  Resur.^ 
p.  10,  n.  16),  still  it  is  plain  that  Justin  though  never  actually  identifying  Christ  with 
God  gives  to  him  an  exceedingly  high  role  and  calls  him  "God"  {Dial.  57). 

3o5tos  0  d7r'  dpxv^,  o  Kaivbs  <f>av€ls,  Kal  7raXai6s  evpedels,  Kal  irdpTore  p4os  ip 
ay iup  Kapdtais  yeppdfievos.     OCtos  6  ael,  [6]  <x'/}fiepop  vib^  Xoyiffdeis. 

4  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers,  p.  510.  s  Vol.  I,  p.  29. 

416 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE   HEBREWS  91 

the  whole  context  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  passage  in 
Justin,  and  probably  the  writer  to  Diognetus  would  have  given  an 
interpretation  to  <n}/Acpov  similar  to  that  which  Justin  gives.  Like  the 
passage  in  Justin,  it  emphasizes  the  contrast  which  was  felt  between  the 
eternity  of  the  being  who  is  called  "Son"  and  a  word^  which  by  its 
proper  meaning  contradicted  that  eternity. 

What  truth  there  may  be  in  any  or  all  of  these  varying  views  of  the 
inception  of  Christ's  Sonship,  viz.,  resurrection  and  exaltation,  baptism, 
miraculous  conception,  Logos-doctrine,  it  is  not  in  place  to  discuss  here. 
This  explanation  of  their  relation  and  development  may  not,  indeed,  be 
the  right  one.  But  it  accounts  well  for  the  presence  of  the  quotation  of 
Ps.  2:7  in  Heb.  1:5;  5:5,  and  also  for  the  fact  quite  noticeable  in  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  in  the  earlier  parts,  that 
there  is  a  reluctance  to  apply  the  title  "Son"  to  the  Christ  as  pre- 
existent. 

This  view  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  while  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
conceives  the  Son  as  a  being  whose  life  extends  probably  into  the  eternal 
past,  yet  in  none  of  the  other  passages  in  which  the  title  "Son"  is  used 
does  he  employ  it  in  a  clear  and  unambiguous  way  of  the  pre-existent  one. 
It  might  be  answered  that  for  one  who  is  beforehand  determined  that  the 
title  "Son"  could  only  apply  to  the  earthly  Christ,  either  in  the  days  of 
his  flesh  or  as  exalted,  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  writer  so  to  use  the 
title  as  to  compel  reference  to  him  as  pre-existent.  But  in  such  a  passage 
as  10:5-9,  which  clearly  implies  pre-existence,*  and  may  appropriately 
be  compared  to  Phil.  2:55.,  the  author  might  have  used  the  title  " Son" 
so  as  to  refer  clearly  to  the  pre-existent  one. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  precise  content  of  the  word  "Son"  in 
the  conception  of  the  writer.  In  fact  there  are  not  sufficient  data  to  do 
so.  In  1 : 8  it  is  evident  from  what  follows  that  the  conception  of  "  Son  *' 
is  a  high  one,  even  though  the  first  part  of  vs.  8  were  to  be  translated 
according  to  Westcott  and  Hort,  "Thy  throne  is  God  forever  and  ever 
and  the  sceptre  of  uprightness  is  the  sceptre  of  His  Kingdom."  But 
even  here  the  adoptive  idea  thrusts  itself  to  the  front  in  1:9. 

» It  is  impossible  here  to  go  into  the  probable  date  of  chaps.  11  and  12  of  Ep.  to 
Diognetus.  It  is  generally  recognized  that  there  is  a  break  between  chaps.  10  and  11 
and  that  the  epistle  proper  ends  with  chap.  10.  Also  that  chaps.  11  and  12  are  prob- 
ably a  homily;  cf.  Hamack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Litteratur  bis  Eusebius,  S. 
757:  "Es  ist  das  Fragment  einer  Homilie  und  gehort  vielleicht  in  den  Kreis  des 
Methodius."    Methodius  died  cir.  311  a.d. 

=*  The  participle  ipx^fJi^vos  being  present  implies  that  what  is  said  vss.  5-7  is  said 
coincidently  with  coming  into  the  world. 

417 


92  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

In  3:6  Christ  is  contrasted  with  Moses.  While  both  were  faithful, 
Moses  was  faithful  only  as  a  servant  as  being  in  and  therefore  also  a  part 
of  God's  house.  But  Christ  was  faithful  as  a  Son  over  God's  house. 
The  thought  here  is  closely  connected  with  that  of  Christ  as  a  "first- 
born" Son  (1:6).  In  God's  house  Christ  holds  the  high  and  honored 
position  and  power  which  was  universally  assigned  to  such  a  one  in 
ancient  and  especially  oriental  states.  But  in  this  passage  again  it  is 
interesting  as  well  as  perplexing  to  note  that  while  the  writer  probably 
made  no  conscious  distinction  between  believers  of  the  old  dispensation 
and  those  of  the  new  as  constituting  God's  house,  yet  those  over  whom 
Christ  is  placed  as  "Son"  are  the  Christians,  not  the  Old  Testament 
saints.^  It  is  another  indication  that  almost  unconsciously  the  title 
"Son"  carries  to  the  writer  the  atmosphere  of  the  earthly  and  exalted 
Jesus.  It  does  not  refer  so  fittingly  to  the  pre-existent  Christ.  In 
this  passage  the  word  "Son"  lacks  the  article,  is  qualitative,  and 
denotes  such  a  one  as  bears  the  same  relation  to  God  and  his  house 
(Christians)  as  the  firstborn  bears  to  the  father  of  a  household.  There 
is  nothing  to  indicate  how  he  was  constituted  Son  or  in  what  this 
Sonship  consists. 

In  5 : 8  the  title  occurs  again  without  the  article,  being  qualitatively 
used.  It  is  found  in  the  midst  of  a  passage  which,  as  already  noted, 
emphasizes  thoroughly  the  humanity  of  Christ.  The  thought  of  the 
immediate  context  is  similar  to  that  of  12:5  f.,  which  emphasizes  the 
Father's  love  and  care  in  chastening  true  sons.  But  the  contrast  is 
clearly  and  strongly  marked  in  that  while  in  12:5  f.  the  chastening  and 
consequent  training  is  natural  and  to  be  expected  of  every  son  (cf.  12:6), 
in  5:8  the  author  designates  the  chastening  and  sufferings  of  Christ  as 
altogether  exceptional  and  exceptional  just  because  he  was  a  "Son." 
This  marks  the  Sonship  of  Christ  as  in  the  author's  conception  unique. 
It  also  clearly  predicates  Sonship  of  Jesus  before  his  resurrection  and 
exaltation.  Does  it  use  the  title  of  him  as  pre-existent?  Possibly  so; 
but  even  if  so,  the  experiences  which  he  relates  have  to  do  entirely  with 
the  historical  Jesus. 

In  Heb.  7:28  again  the  title  is  qualitative:  "one  who  is  a  son  per- 
fected forever."  This  passage  also  tends  to  separate  Jesus  from  men, 
even  from  Christians,  but  this  separation  is  closely  connected  with  the 
fact  that  he  is  High  Priest.  As  such  he  is  "holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
separate  from  sinners  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens."  This  de- 
scription of  the  Son  is  not  one  that  refers  to  moral  character  only.    It 

^  Cf.  Heb.  s:6b,  "whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast,"  etc. 

418 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  93 

is  in  a  large  measure  official  perfection,  perfection  that  consists  in  proper 
relations  and  proper  surroundings.  It  is,  however,  contrary  to  the 
emphasis  of  the  writer  upon  the  weakness  (5 :  2b,  7  f .)  and  true  humanity 
to  say  that  there  is  "no  contrast  between  the  state  of  the  Son  before 
perfection  and  when  perfected.^"  That  would  empty  his  words  of  any 
meaning.  It  is  probably  true  that  in  the  author's  conception  the  con- 
trast does  not  imply  any  positive  moral  sinfulness  in  the  Son  before 
perfection.  The  state  of  perfection  here  is  in  evident  contrast  with  the 
state  of  weakness  (7:28a).  The  state  of  perfection  as  contrasted  with 
the  state  of  weakness  in  the  days  of  his  flesh  has  an  added  increment  of 
positive  moral  strength,  of  power,  and  of  efficiency.  This  is  a  condition 
of  character  and  saving  power  unattained  by  any  Levitical  high  priest, 
altogether  unattained  by  anyone.  Does  the  word  "Son"  here  apply  to 
Christ  as  pre-existent  ?  It  would  surely  seem  so,  for  it  is  the  word  of 
the  oath  which  was  after  the  law,  viz.,  Ps.  110:4,  which  declares  a  Son 
High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.  Sonship  and  Priesthood 
are  closely  associated  in  5:5.  The  writer  may  well  have  conceived  the 
pre-existent  Christ  as  declared  by  God  High  Priest  proleptically.  In 
this  passage  he  seems  to  separate  between  the  Sonship  and  High-Priest- 
hood. But  as  the  inception  of  Sonship  is  left  indefinite  by  the  writer, 
so  the  inception  of  Priesthood  is  left  indefinite.  The  Son  seems  to  be 
spoken  of  as  pre-existent,  but  he  is  described  in  words  which  denote 
a  perfection  gained  by  earthly  experiences. 

In  four  other  passages*  the  full  title  "Son  of  God"  is  used  of  Jesus. 
In  the  first  (4:14,  "Jesus  the  Son  of  God"),  by  being  coupled  with  the 
name  "Jesus,"  the  title  is  again  redolent  of  the  life  and  experiences 
of  the  man  Jesus.  The  context  is  also  similar  to  that  of  7 :  28,  since 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  is  the  great  High  Priest  who  by  his  experiences  is 
full  of  sympathy  for  human  sins  and  weakness.  By  this  too  the  title 
"Son  of  God"  is  here  surrounded  with  an  atmosphere  of  earth. 

In  6:6  and  10:29,  passages  which  are  quite  similar,  the  supreme 
and  awful  dignity  and  worth  of  the  person  designated  is  brought 
out  by  the  title  "Son  of  God."  The  solemn  weight  which  the 
title  can  and  does  here  carry  is  brought  out  by  the  fact  that  to 
trample  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  to  count  the  blood  of  the 
covenant  an  unholy  thing  (10:29),  to  crucify  the  Son  of  God  afresh 
(6:6),  and  to  put  him  to  an  open  shame  is  the  unforgivable  sin,  the  final 
tragedy.    It  is  not  necessary  to  show  here  what  is  the  source  of  this 

I  A.  B.  Davidson,  Hebrews,  p.  145. 
'»Heb4:i4;  6:6;  7:3;  10:29. 

419 


94  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

terribly  somber  strain  in  Hebrews.'  It  is  clear  that  the  supreme  dignity 
and  work  of  the  one  who  is  called  the  Son  of  God  is  the  very  thing  that 
makes  such  a  sin  possible.  And  yet  even  in  these  tragic  circumstances 
the  things  which  constitute  the  crime,  viz.,  counting  the  blood  of  the 
Covenant  an  unholy  thing,  crucifying  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  etc., 
involve  references  only  to  the  experiences  of  the  earthly  Jesus. 

The  third  use  of  the  full  title  "Son  of  God"  occurs  in  the  chapter 
which  deals  with  Melchizedek  as  the  type  of  Christ  (7:3,  "Being  made 
like  the  Son  of  God,"  etc.).  This  bit  of  characteristic  Alexandrian 
allegorical  exegesis  deserves  more  detailed  and  intensive  study  than  has 
yet  been  given  to  it.  For  the  writer  as  for  Philo  there  is  an  aureole 
around  the  weird  figure  of  Melchizedek.  The  oracle  of  Ps.  110:4  is  the 
chief  cornerstone  of  the  writer's  whole  presentation  of  Jesus.  Generally 
the  figure  of  Melchizedek  is  viewed  as  the  type  of  Christ  and  the  writer 
views  his  thesis,  of  the  intricacy  of  which  he  is  himself  fully  aware  (5:11), 
as  doubly  proved  since  as  a  matter  of  fact  one  did  actually  appear  in 
history  who  answered  all  the  requirements  of  this  oracle  (7 :  15  f.).  Jesus 
is  a  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  and  not  after  the  order  of 
Aaron  (7:11).  And  this  means  particularly  two  things,  viz.,  a  new  and 
better  covenant  (7:12),  and  an  unchangeable  because  eternal  and  perfect 
priesthood  (7 :  16  f.).  But  the  likeness  to  the  type  Melchizedek  consists 
chiefly  in  the  fact  that  Christ's  Priesthood  is  forever,  eternal  (7:16); 
it  does  not  pass  to  another  (7 :  24)  because  he  who  exercises  it  possesses 
a  life  of  such  essential  and  moral  quality  as  to  be  indestructible  (7: 16). 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  in  this  phrase,  "made  like  unto  the 
Son  of  God"  (7:3),  the  title  is  used  in  a  way  directly  contrary  to  the 
usage  of  the  passage  in  Ps.  110:4  on  which  it  is  supposed  to  be  based, 
contrary  also  to  the  application  which  the  writer  himself  makes  in  the 
rest  of  this  passage.  This  has  caused  interpreters  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
and  it  has  been  explained  in  various  ways.^ 

The  simplest  and  probably  the  best  explanation  is  to  be  found  by 
considering  that  the  same  process  of  thought  occurs  here  in  connection 
with  the  writer's  use  of  the  passage  in  Ps.  110:4  as  occurred  in  con- 
nection with  his  use  of  the  passage  in  Ps.  2:7,  as  above  described.    In 

^  Perdelwitz  {Zeitschrift  fiir  neutestatnentUche  Wissenschaft,  Heft  2,  19 10;  Das 
lUerarische  Problem  des  Hebraer- Briefs,  II,  S.  105)  argues  for  the  origin  of  Hebrews  in 
the  circle  of  presbyters  in  Asia  Minor,  on  the  basis  of  similarity  to  a  newly  discovered 
conclusion  of  Mark  and  to  I  John  on  the  question  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

'  Cf.  Bengel,  "non  dicitur  filius  Dei  assimilatus  Melchisedeco,  sed  contra;  nam 
filius  Dei  est  antiquior  et  archetypus";  cf.  8:5;  Bleek,  II,  S.  315  and  I,  S.  360. 

420 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS  95 

both  cases  the  writer's  identification  of  Christ  with  the  Logos,  his  view 
that  Christ  is  pre-existent  and  perhaps  eternal,  causes  him  to  use  language 
of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  and  as  High  Priest  which  is  really  at  variance 
with  the  original  and  with  any  natural  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament 
passages  and  inconsistent  with  the  writer's  own  understanding  of  those 
passages.  It  must  be  admitted  that  here  if  anywhere  the  writer  uses  the 
title  Son  of  God  of  Christ  as  pre-existent.  But  in  doing  so  he  has 
directly  reversed  the  thought  of  his  original  passage  (Ps.  110:4).  He  has 
not  only  gone  beyond  it ;  he  has  contradicted  it  or  at  least  has  revealed 
that  it  is  inadequate  and  inappropriate  to  express  the  thought  that  is 
in  his  own  mind.  It  is  another  support  to  the  thesis  that  the  author  is 
carrying  back  contributions  from  actual  history  and  his  own  experience 
into  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  rather  than  carrying  forward  only 
what  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

The  title  "  the  Son  of  God  "  as  it  is  found  here  (7 : 3)  does  not  indicate 
anything  additional  as  to  content.  Nor  does  it  throw  any  light  on  the 
question  as  to  how  the  writer  considers  Jesus  to  be  or  to  have  become  the 
Son  of  God.  It  is  even  possible,  though  hardly  natural,  to  hold  that  it  is 
not  used  of  Christ  as  pre-existent  but  in  a  free  and  somewhat  loose  way, 
by  a  sort  of  hysteron-proteron,  denotes  the  earthly  Jesus. 

There  is  but  one  case  left  of  the  use  of  "  Son,"  viz.,  1:2.  It  lacks  the 
article  and  is  therefore  used  qualitatively,  meaning  "one  who  is  a  son," 
i.e.,  "who  bears  the  relation  of  a  Son  to  God."  The  context  here  as  in 
most  of  the  other  cases  shows  that  the  word  denotes  one  supreme  and 
unique  in  dignity,  worth,  and  power.^  It  is  possible  that  the  phrases  of 
1 :  3a  carry  a  somewhat  indefinite  ontological  meaning,  but  they  cannot 
be  pressed,  and  the  view  here  taken  is  that  they  are  conceived  by  the 
author  metaphorically  rather  than  metaphysically.  By  this  it  is  meant 
that  the  author  is  not  endeavoring  to  express  by  them  the  nature  or 
process  of  Sonship. 

It  is  quite  possible,  indeed  probable,  that  here  again  the  writer  is 
using  the  word  "Son"  as  denoting  not  merely  the  earthly  but  also  the 
pre-existent  Christ.  This  is  the  more  likely  since  in  the  immediate  con- 
text he  speaks  of  him  as  creator  and  sustainer  of  the  worlds.  But  as  noted 
already,  the  writer's  thought  moves  not  back  to  further  pre-existent  pro- 
cesses or  activities,  but  immediately  forward  to  the  High-Priestly  work 
of  salvation,  the  exaltation  and  the  superior  dignity  of  the  Son. 

Further,  even  here  in  this  succinct,  artistic,  and  lofty  epitome  and 
introduction,  the  thought  of  the  writer  transcends  the  limits  of  his 

*  Cf.  use  of  " Son"  in  the  parable  of  the  Husbandman  (Mark  12:1-12). 

421 


96  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

language.  It  is  not  only  that  in  his  supreme  function  as  revealer  the 
Son  is  placed  with  the  prophets,  so  that  here  too  the  atmosphere  which 
surrounds  the  word  ''Son"  is  that  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus.  But 
the  phrase  ''whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things"  (1:2b)  points  to 
a  specific  time.  If  the  word  iOrjKev  is  taken  to  mean  "placed," 
"established,"  and  the  word  KXrfpovofios  made  to  denote  a  realization 
still  future  to  the  eOrjKcv,^  this  time  may  well  be  taken  to  be  the 
exaltation.  But  whether  taken  in  this  way  or  in  some  other  way  the 
phrase  seems  somewhat  incongruous  with  eternal  sonship.  The  word 
carries  with  it  something  of  the  adoptive  idea. 

c)  Summary. — To  sum  up  the  content  of  the  title  "Son"  or  "Son  of 
God":  The  writer's  free  and  unexplained  use  of  the  word  shows  that  he 
had  taken  it  over  from  the  early  Christian  usage.  He  feels  no  need  of 
defining  it  in  any  precise  way  but  uses  the  term  as  one  quite  familiar. 
The  ethical  and  religious  use  of  the  term  is  easily  distinguished,  the 
atmosphere  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  surrounds  it  continually.  Never- 
theless it  is  clear  that  in  the  writer's  conception  the  term  has  passed 
beyond  its  Hebraic  meaning  and  has  taken  on  somewhat  of  the  Greek 
meaning.  For  the  writer  clearly  applies  the  term  "Son"  to  one  whom 
he  considers  pre-existent  in  a  real  sense.  In  a  few  cases  probably  he 
uses  the  title  "Son"  of  this  pre-existent  being  as  such,  but  he  does  not 
reveal  in  what  precise  way  he  considers  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  He 
probably  considers  him  as  eternal,  but  he  does  not  dwell  upon  or  attempt 
to  give  a  rationale  of  his  past  eternity.  Yet  by  the  language  used  he 
reveals  that  he  had  taken  up  terms  which  originally  denoted  an  adoptive 
conception  of  the  Sonship  which  in  all  probability  was  the  conception 
first  developed  and  held  by  the  Christian  church.  The  writer's  own 
thought,  however,  has  passed  beyond  this.  He  holds  the  Son  to  be  a 
being  altogether  unique  in  his  mission  and  work,  in  the  dignity  and 
worth  of  his  person,  and  in  his  eternal  relation  to  God  as  Father. 

^  Davidson,  HebrewSf  p.  40. 


422 


III.    RESUME:   THE  TOTAL  CHRIST  PERSONALITY 

It  is  clear  that  the  writer  holds  that  there  were  three  well-marked 
periods  in  the  career  of  this  person  whom  he  calls  Jesus,  the  Son,  the 
Christ,  the  Lord,  or  Jesus  Christ.  These  periods  are,  first,  the  period  of 
pre-existence,  secondly  the  period  of  the  earthly  life,  "the  days  of  his 
flesh,"  and  thirdly  the  period  of  the  exaltation.  It  is  one  and  the  same 
person  whose  career  embraces  these  three  periods.  This  person  is 
represented  as  speaking  in  the  first  period  with  a  consciousness  of  what 
would  happen  in  the  second  (10:5;  2:12),  and  as  acting  in  the  second 
period  with  a  consciousness  of  what  would  happen  in  the  third  period 
(12:2).  The  oneness  of  this  personality  is  assumed  in  the  introductory 
words  of  the  epistle  (1:2-4)  as  well  as  in  other  portions  of  it  (7:16; 
2:9;  2:12).  In  fact,  it  is  an  assumption  that  pervades  the  epistle  in 
such  a  way  that  the  writer  feels  no  need  of  specific  reference  to  it. 

The  duality  in  the  personality  of  Jesus  expressed  in  this  thesis  by  the 
phrases  *' human  elements"  and  "transcendent  elements"  might  be 
considered  with  advantage  from  the  standpoint  of  the  three  periods 
above  named.  The  human  element  is  manifested  particularly  in  the 
earthly  period  denoted  by  the  writer  as  the  "days  of  his  flesh,"  the 
second  period.  This  is  the  period  of  temporary  humiliation  (2:9f.) 
between  the  former  period  of  glory  and  the  succeeding  period  of  still 
greater  glory.  But  it  is  in  this  period  of  humiliation  that  he  lives  his 
life  and  does  his  work  as  a  man  in  such  a  way  that  he  earns  the  exaltation 
and  the  greater  glory  of  the  third  period. 

There  is  little  reference  to  the  historical  Jesus  because  the  writer  is 
interested  in  the  sacrificial  death  and  the  High-Priestly  work.  His  life 
as  a  man  is  viewed  as  the  essential  preliminary,  first  for  the  sacrificial 
death,  and  secondly  for  the  sympathetic  discharge  of  his  High-Priestly 
function  in  salvation  (2 :  14,  17;  10: 5  f.).  In  the  case  of  Jesus,  both  the 
becoming  man  and  the  death  are  voluntary,  not  involuntary  as  in  the 
case  of  other  men.  It  is  not  in  the  life  of  Jesus  as  such  that  the  writer 
is  interested. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  writer  presents  the  life  of  Jesus  as  a 
mere  semblance  of  human  life,  a  make-believe.  There  is  no  tinge  of 
Docetism  in  the  epistle.  This  perhaps  results  from  the  fact  that  the  writer 
may  have  viewed  all  human  lives  as  incarnations  of  pre-existent  spirits 
423]  97 


yo  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

(12:9,  236;  10: 5 J)/  In  any  case,  in  describing  the  earthly  period  of  the 
career  of  Jesus  the  writer  shows  an  insight  probably  surpassing  that  of 
any  other  New  Testament  writer  into*  the  development  of  character 
under  stress  and  suffering.  And  further,  there  is  no  intrusion  of  the 
miraculous  in  the  presentation  of  the  writer,  such  for  instance  as  is 
found  running  parallel  with  the  teaching  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The 
writer  may  have  accepted  much  of  this  miraculous  element  in  connection 
with  the  historical  life  of  Jesus,  but  he  does  not  use  it  in  his  presentation. 
The  use  of  historical  material  by  the  writer  is  decidedly  limited,  but  in 
so  far  as  he  does  use  it  he  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  in  his  con- 
ception the  life  of  Jesus  was  a  genuinely  human  life.  It  was  lived  under 
conditions  and  limitations  that  hampered  other  lives.  Its  characteristic 
was  not  that  it  was  a  life  free  from  these  limitations  but  that  it  over- 
came them. 

The  "transcendent  element'^  in  the  life  of  Jesus  is  manifested  rather 
in  the  first  and  third  periods  than  in  the  second.  The  third  period 
begins  with  the  exaltation  preceded  by  that  which  corresponds  to  the 
ascension  (4:14;  6:20).  In  the  case  of  Jesus  these  are  transcendent 
elements,  though  the  writer  has  the  conception  of  the  ascension  or 
translation  of  Enoch  (11:5).  Repeatedly  it  is  stated  that  Jesus  is 
exaltedat  the  right  hand  of  God  (1:3;  8:1;  10:12;  12:2).  This  exalta- 
tion is  conceived  of  as  a  reward  for  work  accomplished  (5: 8  f ;  8:6)  and 
as  befitting  the  nature  and  inner  worth  of  Jesus  (12:2  f.).  It  is  couched 
in  the  most  august  and  solemn  language,  denoting  emphatically  an 
epoch  in  the  career  of  Jesus. 

The  language  in  which  the  exaltation  is  expressed  implies  that  Jesus 
is  to  rest  and  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  labors  for  the  salvation  of  men.  He 
has  finished  his  labors  and  has  entered  upon  the  state  of  personal  and 
official  perfection  (2 :  10;  5:8).  He  has  entered  into  the  sabbatismos  for 
the  people  of  God  (4:9)-  And  the  notion  of  rest  is  extended  to  denote 
that  Jesus  is  to  wait  expectant  until  God  shall  have  subdued  all  his 
enemies  beneath  his  feet  (1:13;  10:13).  Who  or  what  these  enemies 
were  the  writer  does  not  say,  unless  he  includes  among  them  death  and 
the  devil  (2 :  14).=*    He  may  be  assumed  to  include  further  all  the  forces 

*  There  is  no  direct  evidence  of  this,  but  there  are  some  hints  that  point  toward 
such  a  view.  It  would  not  be  out  of  accord  with  his  Platonic  tendency  and  would 
explain  the  peculiar  way  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  incarnation  of  Jesus.  This  is  the 
view  of  the  writer  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  with  which  Hebrews  has  some  affinity 
(Wisd.  8:19,  20;  7:  if.). 

»Cf.Wisd.2 123,24. 

424 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  99 

among  men  and  in  the  universe  that  make  for  wickedness  and  thwart 
the  realization  of  the  perfect  messianic  kingdom.  But  the  Son  himself 
is  not  active  in  the  subduing  of  these  enemies.  God  is  to  make  them 
the  footstool  of  his  feet  (i :  136).  This  emphasizes  the  subordination  of 
Jesus  to  God,  even  in  the  period  of  the  exaltation  of  Jesus.  In  Paul 
Jesus  is  represented  as  in  charge  of  the  government  of  the  world  and  of 
the  kingdom,  which  government  he  finally  surrenders  to  God.  In 
Hebrews  God  never  surrenders  his  unique  and  supreme  place. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  interpret  the  idea  of  rest  involved  in  the  writer's 
language  expressing  the  exaltation.  But  it  must  not  be  so  interpreted 
as  to  make  the  exalted  Christ  inactive.  It  is  probable  that  the  writer 
conceives  the  cosmic  activity  of  the  pre-existent  period  (1:2,  3)  to  be 
continuous  throughout  the  time  subsequent  to  exaltation.  But  his 
thought  is  not  directed  primarily  to  the  cosmic  relations  or  activities  of 
Christ.  The  emphasis  of  the  writer  is  soteriological.  Christ  is  active 
in  the  time  subsequent  to  exaltation,  but  it  is  an  activity  that  is  related 
to  salvation  and  has  as  its  object  and  goal  the  realization  of  perfect 
salvation  in  the  messianic  kingdom  (9 :  28).  This  will  be  inaugurated  at 
the  second  coming.  In  the  meantime  Christ  is  active  as  High  Priest  in 
the  heavenly  tabernacle  in  the  very  presence  of  God  (5:9;  6:20;  7:24, 
25) .  The  modern  mind  finds  it  hard  to  conceive  of  this  heavenly  activity 
in  any  definite  way.  The  writer  of  Hebrews,  in  true  Platonic  fashion, 
considered  the  heavenly  the  real  (9:23,  24).  He  conceived  the  unseen 
activity  of  Christ  in  the  heavenly  tabernacle  as  exerting  a  real  influence 
on  God  and  on  men.  It  saved  men,  purifying  and  sanctifying  them 
(5:9;  9:14;  10:19  f.),  and  it  restrained  the  righteous  wrath  of  God 
(12:29). 

All  this  High-Priestly  activity  is  transcendent.  It  belongs  to  a  being 
that  is  transcendent,  that  is  more  than  man,  for  it  is  directed  to  the 
saving  of  men.  Christ  is  a  mediator  between  God  and  men  since  he  is 
the  mediator  (12 :  24)  and  surety  of  the  new  covenant  (7:22).  No  high 
priest  of  the  old  covenant,  indeed  no  human  being  as  such,  could  perform 
this  office  of  savior  (2:16,  17).  It  was  performed  in  a  transcendent 
sphere  and  required  a  transcendent  being. 

In  regard  to  the  activity  and  position  of  Christ  in  the  second  stage 
of  the  exaltation  period,  the  perfected  messianic  age,  the  writer  is  still 
more  reticent.  The  voice  of  God  that  once  shook  the  earth  only  will 
again  shake  both  earth  and  heaven  so  that  the  things  that  are  made 
shall  be  shaken  and  pass  away  and  only  the  unseen  realities  shall  remain 
(1:10-12;  12:26  f.).     He  identifies  Christianity  with  this  kingdom  of 

425 


100  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

abiding  reality  that  cannot  be  changed.  This  is  probably  a  Chris- 
tianized form  of  the  Platonic  and  Philonic  contrast  of  the  intelligible 
and  the  tangible  worlds,  the  koct/xos  vot/tos  and  the  Koa-fio^  alo-Oyyros. 
Angels  in  one  place  (iiyb)  are  spoken  of  as  if  they  might  be  among  those 
beings  that  would  pass  away.  In  another  place  (12 122 J)  they  are 
associated  with  the  kingdom  of  abiding  reality.  As  to  what  would 
happen  ultimately  to  men  in  general  and  to  spirit-beings  at  this  great 
metathesis  the  writer  apparently  did  not  think  definitely;  or  if  he  did, 
he  did  not  express  himself  in  this  epistle.  He  declares  unequivocally 
that  Christ  is  eternal  and  does  not  pass  away  with  the  worlds  which  he 
has  made  (1:12).  And  he  probably  holds  to  the  immortality  through 
Christ  of  Christians,  but  his  thought  does  not  pursue  this  topic.  The 
writer  does  not  complete  his  picture  of  the  perfected  messianic  kingdom 
with  material  gathered  from  apocalyptical  sources,  as  the  writer  of 
Revelation  does.  He  prefers  to  leave  details  of  the  eternal  kingdom  to 
reverent  imagination.  He  is  content  to  emphasize  the  abiding  reality, 
the  eternity  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom. 

The  language  which  expresses  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  denotes  further 
the  unique  place  which  Jesus  holds  in  the  world  of  beings  in  relation  to 
God.  There  is  only  one  place  in  all  the  universe  that  can  be  described 
as  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high,  and  Jesus  holds  that  place. 
He  is  the  eternal  vicegerent  of  God.  It  is  the  place  of  supremacy, 
the  place  of  power.  It  is  not  God's  place,  yet  it  is  the  unique  place  of 
power  and  honor  next  to  God. 

But  what  may  be  called  a  higher  degree  of  transcendency  in  the 
writer's  conception  of  Jesus  is  manifested  in  what  the  writer  says  of  him 
in  the  first  period.  This  is  expressed  most  fully  in  the  words  of  the 
introduction  (1:2,  3).  Christ  is  the  agent  of  creation  and  the  support 
of  the  worlds  which  under  God  he  has  created.  This  conception  of  the 
cosmic  significance  of  Christ  is  not  found  in  the  Christology  of  the 
primitive  church,  but  is  quite  characteristic  of  the  later  New  Testament 
view.  In  Hebrews  at  least  it  is  a  corollary  of  the  writer's  Platonic  and 
Philonic  doctrine.  God  is  too  august,  too  pure  and  holy  to  have  direct, 
unmediated  contact  with  the  world  of  tangible  things.  He  is  con- 
cerned rather  with  the  intelligible  world  of  eternal  realities  (9:23,  24; 
12:22,  27).  To  be  sure,  the  author  does  not  hold  this  philosophic 
idea  in  the  outspoken,  unrelieved  form  in  which  Philo  holds  it.  It  is 
considerably  modified  by  the  writer's  emphasis  on  the  Christian  ele- 
ment, so  that  the  philosophic  idea  lies  latent.  But  there  can  hardly 
be  any  doubt  that  for  Christians  in  general,  and  for  the  writer  of 

'    426 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE   HEBREWS  101 

Hebrews  in  particiilar,  the  way  to  the  thought  of  Christ  as  the  agent  of 
creation  was  paved  by  the  philosophic  idea  that  God  was  too  holy  and 
transcendent  to  be  brought  into  direct  contact  with  the  material  world. 
At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  Hebrews  this  idea  in  a  more  or  less  definite 
form  was  the  common  property  of  the  literature  of  the  nations.  But  it 
was  particularly  prominent  in  Philo.  Met  by  the  Christian  faith  in  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  and  the  Christian  consciousness  of  his  religious 
supremacy  and  uniqueness,  it  produced  in  modified  and  more  sober 
form  the  common  Christian  tenet  that  Christ  was  the  agent  and  support 
of  creation. 

This  however  hardly  carries  the  transcendent  element  in  the  con- 
ception of  Christ  beyond  that  which  is  implied  in  his  being  seated  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  at  his  exaltation.  Both  imply  only  a  secondary 
divinity.  Christ  is  in  a  sense  on  a  par  with  angels  as  being  with  them  a 
spirit-being  (1:4,  96).  He  has  become  better  than  they  by  that  which 
he  has  experienced  and  accomplished  on  earth  (1:3,  4),  so  that  after  his 
exaltation,  when  he  comes  again  into  the  world,  the  angels,  who  formerly 
were  in  a  sense  his  companions  {i:gb),  must  worship  him  (1:6). 

The  striking  words  of  1:3a  decidedly  enhance  the  transcendent 
element.  They  may  indicate,  probably  do  indicate,  that  the  writer 
with  more  or  less  philosophical  feeling  and  thought  transferred  these 
words  from  the  Logos  and  Wisdom  to  Christ.^  One  must  beware  of 
making  logical  and  metaphysical  inferences  from  these  terms.*  For,  in 
addition  to  a  measure  of  uncertainty  as  to  their  precise  meaning,  they 
are  at  bottom  metaphorical.  They  are  terms  that  strike  the  imagina- 
tion. The  writer  was  reaching  after  the  highest  terms  within  his 
knowledge  to  express  the  supreme  significance  of  Christ  and  his  unique 
relation  to  God  without  actually  identifying  him  with  God.  These 
terms  enhance  the  transcendent  element  in  the  person  of  Christ  but 
cannot  with  certainty  be  considered  to  carry  it  into  the  realm  of  the 
essentially  divine.  They  say  nothing  about  the  essential  nature  of 
Christ. 

The  titles,  with  the  possible  exception  of  6  vios  and  6  TrpwroroKos 
say  nothing  about  the  essential  nature  of  Christ.  The  title  o  TrpwroTo. 
Kos  is  practically  equal  to  o  vtos,  denoting  a  unique  relation  to  God 
implying  pre-existence  and  priority  in  pre-existence.  It  need  not  of 
itself  denote  essential  relationship  to  God,  but  may  denote  an  ethical 
relationship  of  honor,  responsibility,  love,  and  devotion,  such  as  a 

» Philo,  De  opif.  mundi,  sec.  51,  p.  33D;  Wisd.  7: 26. 

« E.  M6n6goz,  La  thiologie  de  Vepttre  aux  HSbreux,  p.  78. 

427 


<  i 


102  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

firstborn  holds  in  the  house  of  his  father.  It  is  more  likely  however  that, 
like  the  terms  in  i :  3a,  it  denotes  some  sort  of  actual,  that  is,  essential 
relation  to  God,  a  relation  which  is  not  explicitly  defined  but  which  falls 
short  of  identity. 

The  title  "  Son  "  is  more  frequent  and  more  august,  but  it  is  a  question 
whether  it  carries  anything  stronger  or  more  definite  in  essential  relation- 
ship than  "firstborn."  The  title  Son  is  used  of  Jesus  both  in  the  earthly 
period  and  in  the  period  of  exaltation.  It  is  not  certainly  used  of  him 
in  the  pre-existent  period,  though  the  writer  might  very  easily  have  so 
used  it  as,  for  instance,  if  he  had  said  in  10:5,  "Wherefore  when  [the 
Son]  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith,"  etc.  There  are  various  other 
ways  by  which  the  author,  if  he  had  so  desired,  might  have  made  it 
unambiguous  that  he  considered  Christ  as  Son  of  God  in  the  pre-existent 
state,  that  is  as  eternally  Son.  And  it  is  not  possible  to  deny  on  the 
basis  of  the  epistle  that  the  writer  did  so  consider  Christ  as  eternally  the 
Son  of  God.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  he  did.  He  uses  the  term 
as  one  familiar  to  himself  and  his  readers,  and  so  familiar  that  it  needed 
no  explanation.  If  he  conceived  the  relationship  of  Son  as  eternal,  he 
still  furnishes  no  means  whatsoever  of  apprehending  the  modus  operandi 
of  that  relationship.    His  thought  was  not  turned  in  that  direction. 

But  the  adoptive  meaning  of  the  language  used  in  regard  to  Sonship, 
the  fact  that  in  no  instance  does  he  unambiguously  use  the  term  Son  of 
Christ  as  pre-existent,  the  fact  that  he  seems  to  guard  the  subordination 
of  Christ  to  God  even  when  he  speaks  of  Christ  in  the  highest  terms — 
all  these  as  well  as  other  indications  go  to  show  that  the  writer  probably 
marked  a  transition  from  an  earlier  christological  view  which  his  adoptive 
language  fitted  to  a  later  and  more  advanced  view  for  the  expression  of 
which  there  was  no  fitting  terminology.  He  therefore  used  his 
Alexandrian  terminology  notably  in  1:3a,  and  this  terminology  soon 
became  used  to  express  a  view  still  further  advanced  than  that  of  the 
writer.  But  this  terminology  even  as  meant  by  the  writer  expressed  an 
advanced  view  inconsistent  with  the  view  expressed  by  the  adoptive 
terminology.  Probably  the  writer  understood  the  Sonship  as  eternal, 
probably  as  in  some  sense  essential.  But  the  writer  did  not  advance  to 
the  idea  of  an  essential  divinity  of  the  Son  in  the  sense  of  identity  with 
Grod.  That  was  left  for  his  successors.  He  approached  so  closely 
however  to  the  more  advanced  view  that  he  has  generally  been  credited 
with  holding  it.    As  Menegoz  says,  it  is  "une  illusion  d'optique."^ 

«  Menegoz,  op.  cit.,  p.  loi. 

428 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS          103 
SUMMARY 

To  sum  up  in  brief  the  writer's  view  of  the  person  of  Jesus:  The 
writer  holds  that  this  being  whose  earthly  name  was  Jesus  was  a  supreme 
spirit-being  who  had  lived  and  worked  before  his  appearance  in  time. 
During  this  pre-existent  period  this  being  was  comparable  to  the  angels, 
but  at  the  same  time  stood  in  a  unique  relation  to  God^  as  compared 
with  other  spirit-beings  including  angels  (1:30,  6).  He  performed 
works  which  no  other  spirit-beings  performed,  both  in  relation  to  the 
world  (1:2b,  10)  and  to  men  (5:9).  By  an  ex  post  facto  method  of 
thought  he  is  implicitly  credited  with  a  special  relationship  to  men  even 
in  the  pre-existent  period  (2:11).  This  undefined  relationship  to  men 
issues  in  his  becoming  man,  taking  bodily  form  that  in  accordance  with 
the  will  of  God  he  might  become  an  efficient  Savior  and  a  sympathetic 
High  Priest  on  men's  behalf.  This  earthly  period  was  a  period  of 
comparative  humiliation,  a  period  during  which  he  was  inferior  to  the 
angels  to  whom  before  he  had  been  in  a  measure  superior.  But  this 
time  of  temporary  humiliation  and  suffering  issues  in  sinless  perfection, 
both  personal  and  official,  and  finally,  after  the  voluntary  sacrificial 
death  which  secures  forgiveness,  brings  communion  with  God,  and 
perfect  salvation,  in  exaltation.  Because  he  has  accomplished  through 
suffering  this  great  end  of  perfect  salvation  for  men,  he  is  raised  to  greater 
than  his  former  glory.  He  is  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  the 
supreme  place  of  honor  and  power.  Here  in  the  heavenly  tabernacle  he 
exercises  his  office  as  Savior  and  High  Priest,  until  finally  he  shall  come 
again  to  usher  in  the  messianic  age  of  perfect  salvation.  But  all  these 
activities  are  carried  on  in  subordination  to  God  "for  whom  are  all  things 
and  through  whom  are  all  things."     God  ^s  supreme  over  all. 

In  commenting  on  the  blending  or  balance  of  the  human  and  tran- 
scendent elements  in  the  picture  of  the  Christ,  it  may  be  said  again  that 
the  human  elements  are  genuine.  It  is  true  that  the  writer  uses  only 
those  elements  which  bear  upon  the  great  purpose  that  he  assigns  to 
Christ,  the  salvation  of  men.  But  within  these  bounds  the  writer 
presents  a  sober  picture  of  human  development  such  that  one  instinc- 
tively feels  that  it  is  not  artificial  but  genuine. 

And  in  spite  of  much  to  the  contrary,  much  that  renders  plausible 
the  thought  that  the  supernatural  in  the  crude  sense,  the  bizarre,  is  the 
emphatic  thing  with  the  author — ^in  spite  of  this  it  is  true  that  the 
taproot  of  his  presentation  is  the  life  and  death  of  the  human  person 

I  Heb.  1 :3a,  6.  Jesus  was  "firstborn"  in  relation  to  angels  as  the  angels  were  in 
relation  to  men  (i  2 :  23) . 

429 


104  HISTOBICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Jesus  interpreted  primarily  through  his  own  experience  of  salvation  and 
his  knowledge  of  the  similar  experiences  of  his  fellows.^  But  this 
knowledge  and  experience  of  the  benefits  that  flowed  directly  or 
indirectly  from  Jesus  justified  the  author,  in  his  own  mind  at  least,  in 
accepting  the  interpretation  of  his  fellow-Christians  that  this  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah,  that  he  was  risen  from  the  dead,  that  he  was  divine  and 
pre-existent,  and  that  he  would  come  again.  This  experience  of  the 
benefits  springing  from  faith  in  Jesus  justified  him  also  in  adding  many 
peculiar  elements  from  his  own  Alexandrian  training.  Such  may  have 
been  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the  Logos,  that  he  was  the  agent  of 
God  in  creation  and  revelation,  that  he  was  the  mediator  of  a  new 
covenant,  that  he  was  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  that 
he  ministered  in  the  real  tabernacle  in  heaven,  etc.  These  inferences 
may  not  all  be  acceptable  to  the  modern  mind.  They  belong,  many 
of  them  at  least,  to  a  particular  philosophy  and  world-view  that  is  past. 
They  give  a  kaleidoscopic  picture  of  Jesus  that  could  hardly  be  free  from 
inconsistencies  and  incongruities.  Such,  for  instance,  are  the  repre- 
sentations of  Jesus  as  speaking  when  he  is  about  to  come  into  the  world 
(2:12;  10:5),  the  language  that  denotes  an  inception  of  the  Sonship  and 
Priesthood  (5:5,  6),  the  implication  that  Jesus  was  one  with  believing 
men  before  he  came  to  earth  (2:11),  his  relation  to  the  angels  (1:4,  6), 
cleansing  of  the  things  in  the  heavens  with  his  blood  (9:23),  and  many 
other  ideas  which  time  may  prove  to  be  transitory  and  untenable. 

But  there  may  have  been  in  the  writer's  own  mind  a  consciousness 
that  part  of  this  was  realistic  poetic  symbolism.  And  even  if  this  was 
not  so,  it  must  be  admitted  that  these  peculiar  features  were  only  the 
philosophic  molds  into  which  the  author  poured  the  full  content  of  his 
rich  religious  experience. 

^  McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  p.  477 :  "  It  was  thus  the  humanity,  and  not  the  divinity 
or  pre-existence  of  Christ,  which  chiefly  concerns  our  author."  This  contrast,  though 
fundamentally  true,  is  put  too  sharply  to  be  the  best  representation  of  the  author  of 
the  epistle. 


430 


IV.    SOURCES  AND  RELATIONS  OF  THE  THOUGHT  OF 
THE  EPISTLE 

I.      SOURCES  AND  RELATIONS  OF  THE   GENERAL  DOCTRINE 
I.      CLASSIC  JUDAISM 

The  fundamentally  Jewish  basis  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
easily  recognized  without  going  to  the  extreme  of  inferring  that  the 
readers  were  exclusively  Jews  or  that  the  epistle  must  have  been  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  a.d.  and  the  consequent  cessa- 
tion of  the  Temple  ritual.  As  already  remarked,  the  fundament  of  the 
epistle  is  rather  the  ritual  of  classic  Judaism  blended  with  ideas  from  later 
apocalyptic  Judaism.  The  God  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  who  spoke  in  the  prophets  to  the  fathers 
(1:2)  and  presided  over  all  the  fortunes  of  the  ancient  people  (4:2  ff.; 
chap.  11).  He  is  a  consuming  fire  (12:29).  The  whole  ritual  and  law 
used  as  illustration  by  the  writer  is  clearly  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  priesthood  is  the  Levitical  priesthood  with  the  variety  of  thoughts 
associated  therewith — the  thought  of  the  sympathy  of  the  high  priest  as 
being  weak  and  requiring  to  offer  for  himself  as  well  as  for  the  people 
(5:1  f.),  the  idea  that  the  high  priest  is  not  self-appointed  (5:4)  but 
called  of  God,  the  idea  of  purification  (1:3  and  passim)  ^  the  idea  of  God's 
mediating  by  an  oath  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham  (6:13  f.;  7:28  f.),  the 
idea  of  hearts  sprinkled  from  a  wicked  conscience  and  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water  (10:22).  There  is  also  the  idea  of  the  new  covenant 
taken  over  from  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (8:8  f.).  The  whole  picture  of 
Melchizedek,  though  painted  with  Alexandrian  colors,  has  its  roots  in 
the  Old  Testament  story  (5:11  f .).  Though  much  might  be  added,  this 
point  need  not  be  labored  further.  It  is  quite  plain  that  the  author  of 
Hebrews  was  steeped  in  Old  Testament  literature  and  religious  ideas. 

2.      LATER  JUDAISM  AND  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

But  the  writer  has  added  ideas  from  later  apocalyptic  Judaism  and 
from  primitive  Jewish  Christianity.  From  later  Judaism  the  writer  has 
the  idea  of  the  two  ages  (9:26),  the  idea  of  a  future  judgment  (9:27; 
10:30  f.  12:23;),  and  the  idea  of  a  renovated  earth  as  the  theater  of 
the  future  messianic  age  (2:5;  12:26).  The  slight  emphasis  however 
upon  apocalyptic  and  eschatological  ideas  is  quite  noteworthy. 
The  renovation  or  regeneration  is  not  limited  to  the  earth,  as  in 
431]  105 


106  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  but  involves  heaven  as  well  as  earth,  the  universe 
of  things  (12:26).  This  conception  is  based  very  distinctly  and 
precisely  upon  Old  Testament  prophecy  (Hag.  2:6),  but  is  given  a 
characteristic  turn  by  reference  to  created  things  which  are  to  be  shaken 
loose  from  the  things  that  remain,  leaving  only  the  kingdom  of  abiding 
reality  which  is  the  goal  and  prize  of  the  believer's  faith.  This  is  a 
characteristic  combination  of  the  apocalyptic  view  of  later  Judaism  and 
primitive  Christianity  with  the  Alexandrian  conception  of  the  invisible 
world  of  abiding  reality  which  is  in  its  turn  identified  with  the  ra 
y€v6fi.€va  dyaOd  (9:11)  of  Christian  faith.  It  may  be  noted  here  that 
the  present  tenses  of  12:28  harmonize  well  with  the  idea  of  a  present 
participation  of  and  activity  in  that  kingdom  whose  full  revelation  is  still 
future.  From  later  Judaism  the  writer  has  also  his  doctrine  of  angels 
(1:4;  2:5;  12:22;  13:2),  though  his  peculiar  use  and  emphasis  of  it 
may  be  due  to  other  influences;  his  emphasis  upon  the  thought  that  the 
Old  Testament  law  was  given  by  angels  (2:2);  and  the  idea,  similar  to 
that  of  PhUo,  that  God  or  the  Holy  Spirit  was  speaking  in  all  the 
words  and  ceremonies  of  the  Old  Testament  (9:8). 

More  directly  from  the  Christian  community  and  their  tradition, 
primitive  or  Pauline,  the  writer  has  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
Son  of  God,  as  pre-existent,  humiliated  during  the  days  of  his  flesh  but 
as  raised  by  God  and  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the 
heavens  till  all  his  enemies  shall  have  been  subdued,  but  coming  again 
presumably  for  the  complete  inauguration  of  the  messianic  kingdom, 
though  the  writer  does  not  make  his  thought  definite  in  this  respect. 
He  has  the  idea  also  of  distributions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (2:4),  that  God 
was  in  all  the  marvelous  signs  and  works  of  the  postresurrection  period 
(2:4).  From  the  tradition  of  the  church  the  writer  has  also  the  thought 
of  Jesus'  being  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (7 :  14),  of  his  supplicating  with  tears 
and  strong  crying  for  release  from  death  (5:7).  From  the  early  church 
he  has  his  views  of  catechetical  doctrine,  which  he  calls  the  doctrine  of 
the  beginning  of  the  Christ  (6:1),  the  elements  of  the  beginning  of  the 
doctrines  of  God  (5:12),  viz.,  repentance,  faith  in  God,  the  teaching  of 
baptisms,  the  laying  on  of  hands,  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  eternal 
judgment.  The  eschatological  views  of  the  writer  already  referred  to 
which  have  their  roots  in  Judaism  are  modified  by  the  thought  of  the 
Christian  church  in  their  application  to  the  historical  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.  If  the  writer  has  received  from  primitive  Christianity  the 
suggestion  of  his  great  thesis  that  Jesus  is  the  mediator  of  a  new  cove- 
nant, and  at  the  same  time  its  great  High  Priest  and  final  and  sufficient 

432 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OP  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  107 

sacrifice  (9:26,  28),  who  has  entered  into  the  true  holy  place  to  appear 
before  God  on  behalf  of  believers,  he  has  at  any  rate  given  it  an  entirely 
original  application  and  development.  With  Paul  the  writer  has  the 
idea  of  the  glory  and  honor  of  Jesus  in  his  exaltation  as  the  reward  of 
the  suffering  of  death  (12:2;  cf .  Phil.  2:9).  The  thought  that  believers 
are  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling  is  comparable  to  that  of  Paul  (I  Cor. 
1:26).  So  also  is  his  idea  that  the  Old  Testament  law,  the  foregoing 
commandment  (7:18),  is  set  aside  because  of  its  weakness  (Gal.  3:21); 
but  his  method  is  still  quite  distinct  and  original.  He  conceives  of  the 
old  as  shadow  and  the  new  as  substance,  the  familiar  Alexandrian 
contrast.  Paul  does  not  use  this  category.  Paul  thinks  of  the  law  as  a 
tutor  to  lead  to  Christ  by  stressing  the  human  consciousness  of  sinfulness 
and  weakness.  Paul's  conception  is  rather  doctrinal  and  ethical:  that 
of  the  author  of  Hebrews  is  rather  ritualistic  and  religious. 

3.      ALEXANDRIAMSM 

This  dependence  of  the  author  of  Hebrews  upon  the  classic  Judaism 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  upon  later  Judaism  and  upon  primitive  Chris- 
tianity is  strongly  colored  and  modified  by  his  relation  to  Alexandrian 
thought.  From  this  source  mainly  he  has  his  idea  of  Christ  as  the  Logos 
(though  he  does  not  apply  the  term  to  him)  and  as  Creator  and  Sup- 
porter of  the  world  (1:2),  as  the  image  and  representative  of  God  (1:3), 
possibly  as  a  second  God  (1:8).  He  has  the  idea  of  inspiration  developed 
among  Alexandrian  Jews  according  to  which  not  the  actual  writers  but 
God  (1:1  f.;  5:5;  8:8,  13)  or  Christ  (10:5)  or  the  Holy  Spirit  (3:7;  10: 
15)  or  "some  one"  (2:6) — a  method  of  citation  indefinite  because  God 
himself  really  speaks  in  all  the  Scripture — speaks  in  the  prophets  and  in  a 
Son  (1:2).  God  is  for  the  author  of  Hebrews  the  father  of  spirits,  not  a 
merely  technical  or  philosophical  designation,  but  one  that  has  a  certain 
warmth  and  beauty  of  religious  feeling  about  it  (12:96).  This  is  a 
characteristic  Alexandrian  thought.^  So  is  the  thought  of  suffering  as  the 
chastening  of  God.*  The  peculiar  use  which  the  author  of  Hebrews  makes 
of  the  weird  figure  of  Melchizedek  is  Alexandrian  in  its  exegesis  and  in  its 
whole  thought  and  atmosphere.  The  thought  of  the  High-Priesthood, 
while  essentially  that  of  the  Old  Testament  with  its  emphasis  on  ritual, 
is  yet  touched  with  the  more  refined,  mystical,  abstract  conception  of 
Philo's  thought.  The  thought  of  heaven  as  being  the  true  Sanctuary 
as  opposed  to  the  sanctuary  of  this  world  which  is  but  the  copy  and 
shadow  of  the  heavenly  is  of  course  thoroughly  Alexandrian  (8:5).    The 

^Wisd.  11:26.  "Wisd.  3:5,  6. 

433 


108  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Alexandrian  attitude  and  tendency  of  the  author  is  evident  in  his  method 
of  exegesis,  in  his  description  of  the  word  of  God  (4 : 1 2),  in  the  terms  which 
he  applies  and  the  functions  which  he  assigns  to  Christ  (i :  2  f .),  in  his 
identification  of  Christianity  with  the  Philonic  archetypal  world  of  invis- 
ible reality. 

4.      ORIENTAL  MYSTERY-RELIGIONS 

But  though  it  is  patent  on  every  page  of  Hebrews  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  primitive  Christian  community  including  Paul  provide 
the  substance,  while  the  form  or  mold  in  the  main  is  Alexandrian — 
yet  one  is  occasionally  conscious  of  a  certain  peculiar  strain,  an  unusual 
emphasis,  a  peculiar  atmosphere  that  does  not  properly  belong  to  the 
above  sources.  The  explanation  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  large  part,  no 
doubt,  in  the  striking  originality  of  the  writer.  To  this  factor  is  to  be 
assigned  the  whole  point  of  view  and  attack,  as  well  as  many  separate 
thoughts. 

Leaving,  however,  the  original  element  for  later  consideration,  the 
variation  from  the  above-named  three  sources  is  to  be  accoimted  for  by 
a  certain  tinge  from  the  oriental  mystery-religions  of  the  time.  In  the 
first  place,  the  writer's  whole  method  of  presentation  is  in  all  probability 
determined  by  his  knowledge  of  and  a  certain  sympathy  with  the  rites  of 
the  Hellenistic  mystery-religions.  It  has  already  been  noted  that  the 
writer's  thought  does  not  revolve  about  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  and  its 
services,  but  about  the  tabernacle  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  academic.  But  no  man  is  wholly  academic — certainly  the 
writer  to  the  Hebrews  is  only  partly  so.  He  is  in  close  touch  with  his 
people,  intensely  hortatory  and  practical.  He  was  writing  considerably 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  when  the  sacrifices  of  the  temple  ceased 
(70  A.D.),  but  he  was  not  writing  to  a  people — gentiles  though  they 
probably  were — who  were  unfamiliar  with  such  rites  or  familiar  with 
them  only  in  Old  Testament  forms.  Both  he  and  they  were  familiar 
with  variant  forms  of  that  ritual  on  every  side  about  them.  The  ritual 
of  sacrifice,  purification,  and  baptisms  was  dead  at  Jerusalem,  but  not  at 
Rome  or  in  the  place  whatever  it  may  have  been  to  which  this  epistle 
was  sent.^  To  be  sure,  the  whole  setting  and  presentation  of  the  ritual 
is  that  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  Jewish  high  priest  serving  in  the 
tabernacle.  But  in  its  application  to  Jesus  as  the  great  High  Priest  it 
reveals  certain  influences  from  the  syncretistic  mystery-religions  of  the 
time.  Still  more  emphatically  one  may  say  that  this  presentation  of 
the  Christian  salvation  under  the  high-priestly  category  would  exhibit 

^  Cf.  Cmnont,  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism. 

434 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OP  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  109 

many  features  thoroughly  familiar  to  the  devotees  of  the  varied  oriental 
cults. 

In  spite  of  some  uncertainty,  it  is  possible  to  enumerate  at  least  many 
of  the  touches  that  seem  to  be  more  noticeable.  With  an  emphasis  and 
definiteness  unknown  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
declares  that  "perfection"  was  the  aim  of  the  Levitical  law  and  ritual, 
an  aim  which  it  did  not  and  could  not  attain  but  which  was  attained 
finally  and  perfectly  by  the  new  law  and  voluntary  sacrifice  of  Jesus  as 
High  Priest.  Both  the  conception  of  and  the  emphasis  upon 
"perfection"  is,  I  think,  indirectly  the  result  of  the  influence  of  the 
mystery-religions.  Mithraism,  the  greatest  rival  of  Christianity  for 
some  centuries,  was  most  intent  on  securing  purification  and  perfection 
in  a  very  deep  moral  and  spiritual  sense^  by  various  rites  of  washing,  etc., 
and  all  the  other  mystery-religions  had  similar  rites  with  a  similar 
aim.  The  idea  that  sanctification  (aytao-jnos,  12:14)  is  necessary  in 
order  to  see  the  Lord  is  even  for  our  writer  himself  tinged  with  the 
gnostic  idea  of  the  mystery-religions.  His  description  of  the  worshipers 
who  are  to  approach  the  holy  place  with  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience  and  their  bodies  washed  with  pure  water  keeps  strictly 
neither  to  Old  Testament  nor  to  New  Testament  phraseology,  but  bears 
the  marks  of  the  mystery-religions. 

The  emphasis  of  the  writer  upon  "salvation"  has  its  counterpart  in 
the  mystery-religions.^  It  is  not  meant  that  the  writer  took  his  conception 
directly  from  the  mystery-religions.  The  idea  of  salvation,  of  a  future 
salvation,  of  an  eternal  salvation  secured  by  participation  in  some  form 
of  the  divine  life  and  of  the  God  was  widespread,  but  it  had  become 
widespread  through  the  influence  of  the  thought  of  mystery-religions. 
Mithra  was  the  Savior-God.  Isis  gave  to  her  votaries  the  gift  of  salva- 
tion, which  was  a  new  life  after  a  figurative  death,  a  new  life  which 
would  be  enjoyed  to  the  full  after  death.3  The  salvation  of  the  mystery- 
cults  was  an  eternal  salvation.  In  all  this,  as  will  be  readily  felt,  the 
thought  of  the  mystery-religions  has  worked  indirectly  but  perceptibly 
upon  the  writer  of  Hebrews.  Jesus  Christ  has  become,  after  suffering 
death  and  after  resurrection  to  a  new  eternal,  indissoluble  life,  the  cause 
of  eternal  salvation  to  all  those  who  obey  him  (5:9).    Jesus  is  o-wnjp, 

^Famell,  Evolution  of  Religion,  p.  127;  Cumont,  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman 
Paganism,  pp.  iS4f. 

'  Cf.  Lietzmann,  Der  Weltheiland. 

3  Reitzenstein,  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen,  S.  25  f. 

435 


110  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

"Savior,"  as  were  the  deities  of  the  various  oriental  cults.    The  vision 
of  God  is  "salvation"  (11:27;  12:14).^ 

And  not  only  in  the  peculiar  emphasis  upon  and  atmosphere  about 
the  concept  of  salvation  {a-wTrjpLo),  but  also  in  the  significance  of  the  term, 
is  the  influence  of  the  Gnosticism  of  the  oriental  religions  discernible. 
As  is  well  known,  these  Gnostic  cults  amid  their  many  variations  agree 
in  ringing  the  changes  upon  life,  light,  and  gnosis  or  knowledge.  In 
this,  according  to  them,  consists  salvation,  in  contrast  with  the  primitive 
Christian  community  where  salvation  meant  rather  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  2:33;  2:38,  47),  secured  upon 
repentance  (Acts  3 :  19  f .)  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  risen  Messiah  and 
Lord  (Acts  3:26;  4:2).  The  Pauline  conception  of  salvation  reaches 
to  more  profound  and  mystical  depths,  and  by  so  much  approaches  the 
conception  of  salvation  held  by  the  oriental  cults.  Paul's  own  salvation 
was  due  to  a  superhuman  enlightenment.  But  though  Paul  manifests 
the  influence  of  Gnosticism,  he  does  not  conform  his  conception  of 
salvation  to  that  of  the  gnostic  sects.  The  Pauline  salvation  is  a 
justification  by  faith  involving  forgiveness  of  sins,  release  of  the  con- 
science from  the  sense  and  burden  of  guilt,  right  relations  with  God,  and 
a  new  power  of  life  generated  by  the  mystical  indwelling  of  Christ  by 
faith.  The  Pauline  thought,  while  touched  with  Gnosticism,  is  rather 
mystical  in  an  independent,  original  manner.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
is  less  mystical,  but  has  more  approach  to  the  oriental  cults  in  his 
technical  descriptions  of  salvation  and  conversion.  With  him  con- 
version is  an  enlightenment  (10:32),  as  with  Paul  (II  Cor.  4:6),  and 
that  too,  a  single  (aTra^)  enlightenment.  <f>(tiTi^€iv  is  the  technical  word 
of  the  oriental  cults.^  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  makes  very  little 
reference  to  what  is  now  called  conversion,  as  it  is  directed  forward 
rather  than  backward;  it  is  theological  rather  than  historical.  But  this 
reference  (10:32)  which  it  makes  is  decidedly  gnostic.  So  too  is  the 
phrase  of  10: 26,  also  descriptive  of  conversion,  viz.,  "After  that  we  have 
received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  Perhaps  the  peculiar  use  of 
the  term  "word  of  hearing"  (4:2),  as  used  by  this  Jewish-Christian 
writer,  manifests  a  touch  of  influence  of  the  mysteries.  Indeed  the 
writer  casts  a  strange  halo  about  the  function  of  hearing.    He  idealizes 

»Cf.  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  S.  39  f.;  also  S.  25:  " Ob  unsere  theologischen  Er- 
klarungen  des  <rwriJp-Begriffes  nicht  gut  taten,  letztere  Bedeutung  auch  in  den  Kultbe- 
zeicbnungen  salutaris  dea,'l<rts  a-dreipa,  Sdpairts  a-tari/ip  ein  wenig  mehr  zu  betonen?" 
Cf.  also  Apuleius,  and  Lietzmann,  Der  Weltheiland. 

*  Reitzenstein,  Die  hellenistiscken  Mysterienreligionen,  S.  119. 

436 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  HEBREWS         111 

it  in  the  case  both  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples  (2:3)  and  of  the  ancient 
Israelites  (4:2).  The  oriental  religions,  especially  in  their  earlier  stages 
of  development,  made  much  of  the  sacred  oflSce  of  "hearing."  To 
"hear"  the  word  of  the  God  was  to  receive  his  power  and  his  inbreathing, 
his  TTvevfia.^  In  the  thought  of  the  mysteries  hearing  was  sufficient, 
faith  was  not  required.  But  in  the  thought  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  ancient  Israelites  failed  to  enter  into  the  promised  rest  because  their 
hearing  was  not  united  with  faith. 

There  are  still  other  touches  of  the  mystery-religions  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  The  writer's  conception  of  faith  differs  somewhat  from 
that  of  Judaism,  that  of  the  primitive  Christian  church,  and  that  of  Paul. 
It  approaches  the  conception  of  the  mystery-religions.  It  is  intuitive  and 
philosophical  rather  than  personal  and  ethical  as  with  the  Jews  and  the 
primitive  Christian  church,  or  personal,  ethical,  and  mystical  as  with 
Paul.  In  this  epistle  the  view  of  faith,  particularly  as  presented 
in  the  eleventh  chapter,  reckons  doctrinal  content  as  comparatively 
secondary.  Insight,  the  vision  power,  is  the  important  thing,  the 
realization  of  things  unseen.  Faith  is  seeing  the  invisible  God  (ii:i; 
11:276^),  which  is  a  very  close  approach  to  the  gnosis  of  the  mystery- 
religions.  It  is  probably  under  the  influence  of  these  mystery-religions 
that  our  author  gives  this  particular  turn  to  faith.^  This  conception  is 
a  powerful  one,  however,  not  for  what  it  is  in  itself,  but  for  its  power  of 
reflex  action.  It  is  a  giving  substance  to  things  that  are  as  yet  but 
hoped  for,  and  therefore  a  putting  to  the  test  of  things  unseen  (11  :i). 
Closely  related  to  this  conception  of  faith  is  the  writer's  emphasis  on 
hope;  this  may  also  be  a  touch  from  the  Hellenistic  mysteries,  which 
greatly  emphasized  hope. 

In  all  probability  the  peculiar  emphasis  of  our  writer  upon  the  place 
and  function  of  angels  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  mystery-religions. 
The  roots  of  the  doctrine  of  angels  go  back  to  early  Semitic  teaching. 
They  bear  their  fruit  in  the  emphasis  upon  angels  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Further  development  is  found  in  the  figurative,  philosophical  interpre- 
tations of  Philo  with  regard  to  the  angels.  But  Philo  is  not  to  be  credited 
with  all  the  development  in  this  direction  which  he  manifests.     The 

^Cf.  Gal.  3:2,  "received  ye  the  spirit  from  the  works  of  the  law  or  from  the 
hearing  of  faith,"  i^  olkotjs  irfo-rews ;  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  S.  138.  A  somewhat  similar 
use  of  the  word  d/coij  is  found  in  Corp.  Herm.,  XIII,  17,  quoted  by  Reitzenstein:  vStaa 
<f>i<Tii  K6<rfiov  irpoffd€x^(rd<a  rov  ifivov  r^v  dKoi^v. 

'Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  S.  12;  cf.  Heb.  11:27. 
3  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  S.  85,  note:  rb  yhp  vomeral  ivrl  rb  iruTrevaai. 

437 


112  HISTOBICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

emphasis  on  angels  is  a  mark  of  the  s3rQcretistic  religious  development  of 
his  day.  Many  of  the  mystery-religions  made  much  of  the  place  and 
functions  of  minor  gods  often  called  angels  or  powers.^  This  was 
especially  true  of  the  more  pronouncedly  dualistic  religions,  such  as 
that  of  Mithra,  which  was  compounded  with  a  strong  Persian  element. 
Here  there  were  demons  under  Ahriman  arrayed  against  the  good  angels 
who  were  the  celestial  spirits,  the  messengers  of  Ahura-Mazda.^  That 
there  was  any  direct  contact  between  Mithrsiism  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  it  would  be  hazardous  to  state,  but  there  may  very  well  have 
been  contact  with  common  origins  in  the  syncretistic  religions  of  the  day. 
The  writer  makes  much  of  angels.  They  are  God's  ministers  sent  forth 
to  do  service  for  those  who  are  to  inherit  salvation  (1:14).  In 
all  probability  the  general  assembly  and  gathering  of  the  firstborn 
enrolled  in  heaven  is  the  myriads  of  angels  (i 2 :  23).  This  does  not  sound 
like  Old  Testament,  primitive  Christian,  or  Pauline  doctrine,  but  is  not 
on  that  account  to  be  rejected.^  This  peculiar  importance  attached  to 
angels  is  probably  mediated  by  the  syncretistic  religions  of  the  day, 
which  made  so  much  of  celestial  spirits,  angels,  powers,  deities,  and 
demons.'*  But  though  the  author  gives  an  exalted  position  to  angels,  it 
is  not  at  the  expense  of  the  position  of  Christ.  Many  of  the  oriental 
syncretistic  reUgions  gave  high  places  and  great  powers  to  these  subor- 
dinate deities  and  celestial  beings,  as  is  evidenced  from  the  gnostic 
systems  into  which  they  developed.  The  circles  to  whom  the  writer  to 
the  Hebrews  wrote  were  yielding  to  the  tendency  to  exalt  angels  unduly. 
Consequently  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  remarkable  epistle  the  writer 
claims  the  supreme  place  and  the  supreme  name  for  the  "Son"  (1:4  f.), 
adding  that  to  Jesus  and  not  to  angels  did  God  subject  the  coming  age, 
the  perfect  world  that  was  to  be,  the  subject  of  his  discourse  (2:5).  In 
the  Hermetic  literature  the  same  Greek  word  is  used  in  the  passive, 
expressing  the  subjection  of  the  world  to  Hermes.s  Such  thoughts  as 
these  led  the  author  of  this  Epistle  to  give  the  supreme  place  in  the 
world  to  come  to  Jesus  who  alone  was  worthy  of  it.^ 

Is  it  possible  that  the  impulse  to  the  rich  and  original  thought  of  the 
sequel  of  this  passage  (2 : 5  f.),  particularly  of  2 :  10  f .,  should  have  come 

'  Plutarch,  De  Isis  et  Osiris,  30. 

2  Cumont,  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  pp.  152,  158. 

3  Cf.  A.  B.  Davidson,  Hebrews,  ad  loc. 

4  Plutarch,  De  dejectu  orac,  10,  p.  415^4. 

5  Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  S.  23:   5t6  Kal  Trdvra  viroriraKTai  trot;  cf.  Heb.  10:13. 
'  Cumont,  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  p.  266,  n.  38. 

438 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE  HEBREWS  113 

from  the  oriental  cults  ?  The  picture  is  that  of  a  man  taken  from  the 
midst  of  his  companions,  his  brethren  (2 :  ii  f.),  charged  by  God  with  the 
responsibility  of  leading  his  brethren  to  salvation  and  glory,  and  for  this 
cause  becoming  identified  with  them,  vanquishing  death  and  delivering 
them  from  their  lifelong  bondage  to  death  (2:14  f.).^  These  are  the 
main  outlines  of  the  Redeemer  of  the  various  mystery-religions,  and 
especially  that  of  Mithra,  which  apparently  was  very  militant  and  withal 
very  democratic.  The  situation  reminds  one  also  of  the  deliverance  of 
Alcestis  from  death  by  Heracles.  Jesus  became  like  his  brethren  that 
through  death  he  might  bring  to  naught  him  that  had  the  power  of 
death,  that  is,  the  devil,  and  deliver  those  who  through  fear  of  death 
were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage  (2:14  f.).  Mithra  was  such 
a  redeemer  on  behalf  of  men.  He  was  the  captain  and  leader  of  the 
soldiers,  one  of  their  company  and  in  sympathy  with  them,  the  strong 
companion  of  souls  in  their  trials  and  struggles  (2: 17,  18).  Like  Jesus, 
Mithra  brought  the  souls  of  those  who  took  the  oath  of  loyalty  to  him 
out  of  the  darkness  into  the  supernal  light  of  the  upper  heaven  (cf .  Heb. 
4 :  14  f . ;  7 :  26  f . ;  9 : 1 1  f .,  24,  28).  The  emphasis  upon  devotion,  loyalty, 
faithfulness,  the  necessity  of  perseverance,  the  virile  qualities  so  char- 
acteristic of  Hebrews,  was  characteristic  of  the  Mithra  cult.'  Mithra  was 
perfected,  "sanctus";^  so  was  Jesus.  Mithra  led  the  way  of  souls  into 
the  upper  regions  of  light.  Hermes  also  was  the  guide  or  attendant  of 
souls.4  So  Jesus  is  the  forerunner  of  believers,  entering  for  them  into  the 
very  inner  shrine,  the  true  sanctuary,  where  dwells  the  divine  presence, 
and  thus  opening  up  for  his  followers  also  a  new  and  living  way  of  access 
into  the  divine  presence  (4:14;  6:20;  9:11  f.).  Mithra  is  /ico-iti;?;' 
so  is  Jesus.  Do  not  both  the  ideas  and  the  terminology  here  show  traces 
of  the  mystery-cults  ?  Mithra,  Isis,  Osiris,  Adonis  are  all  men  who  are 
represented  as  vanquishing  death  in  personal  victory.  They  died  and 
rose  as  gods.  Immortality  and  divinity  are  to  be  gained  by  union  with 
them  (cf.  3:14;  5:9;  7:16).  Perhaps  the  extremely  somber  tinge  in 
Hebrews  has  some  relation  to  the  similar  feeling  of  awe  that  attended 
the  mystery-cults. 

There  is  a  striking  parallel  drawn  between  Moses  and  Jesus  in  their 
relation  to  the  house  of  God,  showing  the  superiority  of  Jesus  (3:2  f.). 

»  Cmnont,  op.  cit.,  p.  153&.  »  Cumont,  op.  cit.,  pp.  153,  156  f. 

s  Cumont,  op.  cit.,  p.  269. 

4  Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  S.  236:  "Die  Tatigkeit  dieses  Hennas  ist  nach  der  von 
Dieterich  herausgegebenen  Theogonie  das  oSijT""  der  Seele." 

s  Plutarch,  De  Isis  et  Osiris,  46;  cf.  Gruppe,  Griech.  Mythologie,  S.  159. 

439 


114  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

In  this  passage  the  phrase  o'kos  rov  6eov  is  used  in  an  unusual  man- 
ner, equivalent  to  "household"  and  denoting  Christian  believers 
(3:6).  An  approach  to  this  peculiar  use  is  quoted  by  Reitzenstein.' 
To  Heb.  2:10,  "For  whom  are  all  things  and  through  whom  are  all 
things,"  there  is  found  a  close  parallel  in  the  mystery-religions  as  given 
by  Berthelot,'  tv  to  ttSv  Kai  St  avrov  to  ttSv  kol  cis  avTo  to  irav  (cf.  Rom. 
11:36). 

There  are  still  many  similarities  in  Hebrews  as  compared  with  the 
mystery-cults.  The  mystae  were  called  "brethren,"  and  ayiot,^  and 
were  considered  as  receiving  a  heavenly  calling  (3:1).  The  emphasis 
in  the  epistle  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  did  not  presume  to  take  this  high 
and  holy  office  of  Priesthood  to  himself  but  was  called  of  God  (5 : 4,  5) 
has  its  counterpart  in  the  mystic  cults.^  The  worthy  worship  of  the 
mystic  on  seeing  the  vision  of  God  and  securing  salvation  is  the  song  of 
praise  (cf.  13 :  15).  The  mystic  after  his  new  birth  is  fed  with  milk  until 
he  is  able  to  bear  the  deeper  mysteries.^  Among  some  of  the  deity 
worshipers  of  the  mystery-cults  the  deity  was  ^co?  vj/^io-to?  (cf.  Heb.  7:1). 
The  thought  of  Jesus  as  the  "great  shepherd"  may  have  its  roots  in 
the  Hermetic  literature  of  the  mystery-religions,  as  is  the  case  with  John, 
chap.  10,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  and  other  Christian  passages.^ 

There  are  other  ideas  in  Hebrews  which  might  suggest  the  influence 
of  mystery-cults,  but  about  which  there  must  remain  considerable 
uncertainty,  at  least  in  the  present  state  of  knowledge  upon  the  subject. 
They  may  be  mentioned  briefly.  The  description  of  the  word  of  God  as 
living,  active,  etc.,  of  4:12;  the  thought  of  a  general  assembly  and 
gathering  in  heaven,  an  assembly  of  spirit-beings  of  whom  Jesus  is  one 
(12 :  23)  having  gone  through  the  heavens  (4 :  14;  7 :  26)  may  be  paralleled 
by  the  ascension  of  Mithra  and  still  more  closely  by  that  of  Hermes'  the 
Great  who  was  exalted  to  the  spirit  world  and  classed  among  the  number 
of  the  spirits.  As  to  the  deep  conviction  of  the  writer  of  Hebrews  that 
the  old  priesthood  and  the  old  covenant  have  failed  to  meet  the  deep 
need  of  the  conscience  and  therefore  have  passed  away,  because  God 
who  spoke  formerly  in  the  prophets  has  now  spoken  in  a  Son,  Jesus, 

'  Op.  cit.f  S.  25:  6  oIkos  rov  vavTOKpdropos  deov;  cf.  footnote  i. 
*  Alchemistes  grecs,  Introduction,  S.  133. 
»  Reitzenstein,  op.  ciL,  S.  27. 
*Ibid.,S.2sb,26b. 

sibid.,  S.  52,  S3;  cf.  I  Cor.  3:2;  Heb.  5:12. 

^  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  S.  346,  35;  also  cf.  ibid.,  Gebet,  VEH,  IX,  S.  31,  n.  3. 
'  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  S.  171  and  n.  3. 

440 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  115 

may  this  profound  thought,  with  its  roots  in  the  Melchizedek-story 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  in  Jeremiah,  have  had  its  counterpart  in  the 
idea  of  the  mystery-religions  that  if  God  spoke  to  an  individual  con- 
secrated to  himself,  that  word,  that  revelation  superseded  the  earlier?^ 

Summary. — This  presentation  is  by  no  means  complete.  The  aim 
has  simply  been  to  show  that  there  is  some  influence  from  the  mystery- 
religions  of  the  time  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — more  than  has 
been  recognized.  Indeed  it  would  be  hazardous  at  this  stage  of  the 
historical  study  of  the  relation  of  primitive  Christianity  to  the  Hellenistic 
mystery-religions  to  say  with  precision  just  how  much  from  the  mystery- 
religions  is  found  in  any  of  the  New  Testament  books — even  in  that  one 
in  which  the  mystery-element  is  most  easily  detected,  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  It  can  only  be  said  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  as  has 
been  said  just  above  of  this  epistle,  that  the  element  from  the  mystery- 
religions  is  larger  than  has  been  generally  recognized. 

With  still  less  certainty  can  the  exact  nature  and  sources  of  this 
relationship  be  stated.  In  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  at 
least,  it  is  clear  that  classic  Judaism  as  seen  in  the  Old  Testament, 
Alexandrianism,  and  primitive  Christianity  including  Paulinism,  fqrm  the 
three  main  strands.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  probability  Alex- 
andrianism, whose  influence  in  the  book  is  clear  and  has  been  emphasized, 
is  not  nearly  so  much  of  a  unit  as  has  hitherto  been  thought.  It  (and 
particularly  Philo  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon)  has  been  more  strongly 
charged  with  the  mystery  element  of  the  syncretism  of  the  day  than  we 
have  supposed.  In  any  case  it  is  hoped  it  will  be  clear  from  the  above 
that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  neither  a  man  who 
interpreted  and  presented  Christianity  ftom  the  current  Judaism  of 
his  day  as  it  was  carried  out  in  rite  and  ceremony,  nor  on  the  other  hand 
was  he  an  academic  recluse  who  viewed  the  ancient  tabernacle  afar  off 
and  theorized  upon  it.  It  may  be  added  that  he  was  not  fundamentally 
ethical  and  eschatological  as  were  the  synoptists,  not  profoundly  ethical, 
philosophical,  and  mystical  as  was  Paul,  nor  yet  so  non-eschatological, 
philosophical,  and  mystical  as  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  He  was 
a  cultured,  earnest  man  (probably  a  Jew  of  the  Dispersion)  who  felt 
within  himself  the  deep  need  for  a  redemption  (9:12),  a  purification 
(9:14),  and  a  salvation  (7:25)  which  would  be  satisfactory  and  final, 
for  both  the  present  and  the  future.  Like  Paul,  he  felt  the  whole 
creation  groaning  and  travailing  together,  and  longed  for  a  satisfactory 
deliverance.    This  he  found  secured  for  the  present  and  the  future  in 

441 


116  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Jesus  Christ,  and  sealed  in  his  own  personal  experience,  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  had  known  and  heard  Jesus  himself.  When  however 
he  would  express  this  experience,  when  he  would  expound  the  thought- 
relations  of  his  new  faith  which,  in  its  religious  substance,  he  had  received 
from  the  Christian  tradition,  he  fell  back  instinctively  upon  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  and  the  Jewish  ritual  and  law  or  covenant.  As  compared 
with  Paul  and  the  primitive  Christian  community,  however,  the  writer 
of  Hebrews  makes  much  more  of  the  Levitical  ritual  and  particularly  of 
the  category  of  the  high-priesthood  and  its  sacrifices.  The  Christian 
tradition  had  indeed  come  to  connect  the  forgiveness  of  sin  at  first  with 
the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Jesus  (Acts  3 :  26;  5:31),  and  later  with 
his  crucifixion  and  death  (Matt.  26: 28).  Paul  also  had  made  close  con- 
nection between  forgiveness  and  the  death  of  Jesus  (Rom.  4:25),  and 
had  even  made  an  approach  toward  explaining  the  significance  and  work 
of  Jesus  by  use  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  (I  Cor.  5:7).  But  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  this  reference  to  Christ  as  the  Passover  sacrifice  is  not 
employed  by  Paul  to  expound  the  significance  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
but  to  point  quite  another  lesson  (I  Cor.  5:8).  It  was  left  for  the  writer 
of  the  Hebrews  to  blaze  the  way  toward  a  thorough  exposition  of  the 
significance  of  Jesus  and  of  primitive  Christianity  by  reference  to  the 
Levitical  priesthood  and  ritual  of  the  Old  Testament. 

This  frame  of  thought  which  our  author  uses  for  the  exposition  of  his 
Christian  experience  secured  through  the  Christian  tradition  is  filled  in, 
so  to  speak,  under  the  immediate  influence  of  two  contemporaneous 
movements  of  thought,  viz.,  Alexandrianism  and  the  syncretism  of  the 
mystery-religions.  As  has  been  already  noted,  these  two  were  not  by 
any  means  wholly  independent,  for  the  latter  had  influenced  the  former. 
But  practically  they  were  two  quite  distinguishable  streams  of  thought. 
The  former  gave  to  our  author  the  great  contrast  of  the  koct/xos  votjto^ 
and  the  Koa-fio^  ala-OrjTos,  which  he  uses  with  such  splendid  effect  in 
the  exposition  of  his  Christian  experience.  Both  Paul  and  our  author 
had  broken  decisively  with  ancient  Judaism  in  their  thought  of  Chris- 
tianity as  an  independent  and  final  movement.  But  each  is  independent 
and  different  in  his  conception  of  the  relation  of  the  new  to  the  old,  or 
at  least  in  his  expression  of  that  conception.  With  Paul  the  law 
(Paul  puts  no  emphasis  whatever  on  the  ritual)  was  intercalated,  tem- 
porary, and  preparatory.  The  real  thing  both  before  and  after  the  law 
was  faith  and  the  promises  of  God.  The  law  was  but  a  paidagogos  to 
bring  men  to  Christ  (Gal.  3:7  f.).  This  was  quite  derogatory  to  the 
law,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  in  the  wake  of  Paul's  view  many  extreme 

442 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS  117 

heresies  followed,  subversive  of  elements  of  value  in  Judaism.  Our 
author  on  the  other  hand  views  the  law  and  the  ritual  as  temporary 
and  preparatory,  but  not  as  intercalated.  The  Alexandrian  contrast  is 
seized  upon  by  our  author.  The  law  and  its  ritual  is  an  adumbration 
only  of  the  real  thing,  an  imperfect  copy  of  the  heavenly  antitype;  it 
belongs  to  "this"  world,  the  world  of  the  visible  and  tangible.  Jesus 
Christ  and  Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  in  spite  of  a  certain  unsatis- 
factory indefiniteness,  are  meant  evidently  to  be  identified  with  the 
"other"  world,  with  the  world  of  heavenly  realities,  the  world  of  the 
invisible  and  intangible.  The  Old  Testament  law  and  ritual  were  but 
shadow:  Christianity  is  the  substance.  It  would  surely  be  ingratitude 
to  complain  of  our  author  because  he  has  still  left  Christianity  bound  up 
with  a  contrast,  both  of  time  and  space,  as  E.  F.  Scott  seems  to  do.^ 
We  ought  to  be  thankful  that  he  has  set  up  the  contrast  which  is  bound 
to  be  permanent  in  some  form  in  the  Christian  view  and  has  identified 
Christianity  with  the  other  world  of  permanent  realities.  He  could 
express  his  feeling  of  the  contrast  only  in  some  one  of  the  thought-forms 
of  his  day  and  he  chose  the  Platonic-Philonic  form  because  it  came  to 
him  spontaneously  and  naturally  as  the  best  and  richest  medium  of 
expression. 

But  the  writer's  frame  of  thought  was  filled  out  also  from  the  syn- 
cretism of  the  mystery-religions  of  his  day.  This  element  may  be 
comparatively  small,  but  it  is  an  influence  that  must  be  noted.  That 
our  writer  emphasized  the  ritual  while  Paul  spoke  only  of  the  law  may  be 
due  to  the  contemporaneous  influence  of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
mystery-cults.  Their  influence  on  his  idea  of  the  function  of  the  angels, 
on  his  conception  of  faith,  of  revelation,  of  perfection,  of  conversion  as 
enlightenment,  of  voluntary  self-offering,  as  well  as  on  many  other 
conceptions  of  the  writer,  has  been  noticed.  But  the  chief  influence  of 
the  mystery-religions  has  been  upon  the  writer's  conception,  or  perhaps 
rather,  description,  of  salvation  and  redemption  and  upon  his  picture  of 
Jesus  as  the  divine-human  Redeemer.  This  influence  is  indirect,  prob- 
ably, and  is  shared  by  other  Christian  writers,  e.g.,  Paul.  But  it  is  more 
marked  in  Hebrews  than  in  Paul,  inasmuch  as  Hebrews  makes  much 
more  of  the  human  element  in  Jesus  than  does  Paul.  With  the  author 
of  Hebrews  Jesus  is  pre-existent,  to  be  sure,  but  yet  a  man  who  has 
struggled  through  opposition  and  suffering  to  personal  perfection,  who 
has  fought  his  way  to  victory  over  death  and  him  who  has  the  power  of 
death.    He  has  done  this  as  an  earnest,  God-fearing,  devout  man  who 

*  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  202,  203. 

443 


118  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

has  therefore,  being  called  and  exalted  by  God,  become  the  Redeemer 
and  Savior  of  men,  having  passed  through  the  heavens  and  entered  the 
inner  sanctuary  of  God's  presence.  This  picture  of  Jesus  is  modeled 
after  the  human  redeemer  of  the  mystery-religions  much  more  than  that 
of  Paul  is.  It  occurs  at  a  more  advanced  stage.  On  the  other  hand,  as 
compared  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  influence  of  the  mystery-religions 
is  less  and  earlier.  In  Hebrews  the  influence  of  the  mystery-religions  is 
ritualistic  and  religious  in  its  character.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  it  has 
become  decidedly  philosophical.  It  is  not  philosophical  in  Hebrews. 
In  fact,  one  might  say  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  influence  is  that 
of  the  later  Gnosticism,  not  of  the  earlier  mystery-religions.  In  the 
Fourth  Gospel  the  picture  of  Christ  is  not  at  all  that  of  the  devout, 
faithful  man  struggling  toward  perfection  and  victory  and  so  mediating 
salvation.  He  is  a  real  man  in  theory,  to  be  sure,  as  must  be  held 
against  extreme  Gnosticism,  but  he  is  actually  and  always  the  perfect 
divine  form  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  may  of  course  be  replied  that  he  is 
really  such  in  Hebrews  also,  and  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  truth  in  the 
statement.  But  the  emphasis  is  very  much  more  upon  the  human  side 
involving  faithfulness,  struggle,  and  development.  This  is  evident  from 
the  very  vivid  and  realistic  picture  of  Jesus  given  in  Heb.  5:7-10,  a 
passage  which  bears  marks  of  the  influence  of  the  mystery-religions  with 
their  pictures  of  the  human-divine  Redeemer. 

5.      PROBABLE  ORIGINAL  ELEMENTS 

To  return  to  the  attempt  to  present  the  various  strands  of  the 
writer's  thought,  it  is  necessary  only  to  call  attention  finally  to  what 
seem  in  all  probability  to  be  the  original  thoughts  of  the  writer.  This 
is  a  rather  difficult  task.  The  original  element  in  a  writer  will  vary  or 
even  vanish  according  to  the  severity  of  the  critic's  judgment.  The 
effort  to  trace  genetic  development  is  apt  to  eliminate  the  original 
element,  with  the  result  that  no  individual  is  original.  Allowance  must 
be  made  for  difference  of  opinion.  Strict  and  definite  decisions  are  quite 
impossible,  but  the  following  is  an  attempt  to  set  forth  in  a  general  and 
brief  way  the  elements  probably  original  in  Hebrews. 

As  already  noted,  the  effort  to  set  forth  the  significance  and  supe- 
riority of  Christ  and  Christianity  by  extended  and  detailed  comparison 
with  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and  law  is  original  with  our  writer.  Very 
soon,  indeed,  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  the  Christians  began  to  see  in 
Jesus  and  the  new  movement  the  fulfilment  of  various  Old  Testament 
prophecies  (Acts  1:20;    2:i6f.;    4:25).    This   conviction  entered  the 

444 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS          119 

earliest  tradition  (Mark  1:2-8;  cf.  Matt.  3:1-12;  Luke  3:1-18),  and  is 
especially  prominent  in  Matthew's  Gospel.  Paul  had  made  much  of  the 
same  thought  (Rom.  1:2;  3:21;  16:26;  Gal.  3:8,  etc.).  But  no  one 
makes  the  close  connection  which  the  writer  of  this  epistle  makes.  No 
one  had  deliberately  chosen  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and  law  as  the 
background  against  which  to  present  in  fulness  of  detail,  partly  as 
parallel,  partly  as  contrast,  the  substance  of  the  significance  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  Christian  system.  This  was  original  with  the  author 
of  Hebrews. 

Insight  into  the  weakness  and  unsatisf actoriness  of  the  Old  Testament 
law  and  ritual  was  not  original.  Paul  felt  it  in  very  much  the  same  way 
(Gal.  3:21).  But  conceiving  of  the  Old  Testament  law  and  ritual  as 
shadow  and  identifying  Christianity  with  the  substance  is  original.  A 
feeling  of  the  necessity  of  sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  forgiveness  and  inner 
moral  harmony  and  victory  is  common  to  both  Paul  and  our  author, 
more  profoundly  felt  by  Paul  but  more  expressly  stated  by  Hebrews 
(9:22;  10:4).  But  our  author  is  original  in  the  clearness  and  definiteness 
with  which  he  feels  and  states  that  the  essence  of  the  final  religion, 
Christianity,  consists  in  two  things,  viz.,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  implying 
a  cleansing  of  the  conscience  on  the  one  hand  (9:14),  and  on  the  other 
communion  with  and  devotion  to  the  service  of  the  living  God,  father  of 
Jesus  Christ  (9:14;  10:19,  pcLSsim).  The  writer  feels  that  where  this 
is  attained,  all  rites  and  ceremonies  are  forthwith  rendered  useless  and 
obsolete  (10:18);  so  much  so  that  he  apparently  has  no  place  for  the 
forgiveness  of  further  sins  (10:26  f.)  as  the  Johannine  author  has  (I 
John  1 :  7  f.).  This  view  of  salvation  is  not  attended  by  an  elaborate 
and  profound  theological  system.  It  is  original  in  its  directness  and 
simplicity.  The  attainment  of  this  final  goal  of  satisfactory  religious 
experience  is  assigned,  causally,  wholly  to  the  voluntary  sacrifice  of  the 
perfected  Christ  (5:9;  io:i9f.),  interpreted  according  to  the  ritual  of 
Old  Testament  sacrifice.  But  it  is  very  plain  that  the  basal  reality  is 
the  experience  and  not  the  interpretation. 

The  author  is  original  in  being  the  first  to  relate  the  new  to  the  old 
as  being  both  revelations  of  the  one  living  God  parallel  to  each  other, 
though  the  revelation  in  the  Son  is  supreme  and  final.  It  is  noteworthy 
too  that  he  compares  the  revelation  in  Jesus  to  the  revelation  in  the 
prophets  (1:1  f.). 

There  are  many  other  comparatively  minor  elements  which  are 
peculiar  to  the  author.  Such,  for  example,  are  his  line  of  argument 
showing  Jesus  Christ  to  be  superior  to  the  angels,  to  Moses,  and  to  the 

445 


120  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Levitical  high  priest,  as  well  as  his  idea  of  the  superiority  of  the  new 
sacrifice  and  the  new  covenant;  the  idea  of  the  perfecting  of  Jesus 
through  suffering;  the  identification  of  Jesus  as  captain  of  salvation 
with  the  sons  whom  God  is  bringing  unto  glory,  an  identification  com- 
plete in  all  respects  excepting  sin;  the  idea  that  Jesus  is  not  ashamed  to 
call  these  sons  brethren;  the  idea  of  believers  as  God's  house  with  Moses 
in  it  and  Jesus  over  it,  both  alike  faithful,  the  one  as  servant,  the  other 
as  Son;  the  idea  of  a  sabhatismos  or  spiritual  rest  with  God;  the  idea  of 
the  impossibility  of  a  second  repentance,  forgiveness,  and  restoration 
(6:6);  the  idea  of  "tasting,"  which  is  so  frequent  with  the  author, 
tasting  of  death  (2:9),  tasting  of  the  heavenly  gift,  the  good  word  of 
God,  the  powers  of  the  age  to  come  (6:4f.);  the  idea  of  hope  entering 
as  an  anchor  into  the  inner  sanctuary  and  steadying  the  soul  (6:19); 
the  idea  of  Jesus  as  a  forerunner  (6 :  20) ;  the  thought  that  Jesus  is  High 
Priest  by  oath  of  God  (7 :  20) ;  that  Jesus  is  the  surety  of  a  better  cove- 
nant (7:22);  interpretation  of  the  veil  as  indication  of  the  thought  that 
access  into  the  fulness  of  God's  presence  was  not  yet  secured  (9:8);  the 
idea  that  the  veil  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  (10:20)  (this  may  turn  out  to  be 
an  idea  from  the  mystery-religions) ;  the  repeated  exhortation  to  patience, 
confidence,  and  obedience  in  order  to  secure  the  promise  which  still 
reaches  into  the  future  for  the  readers  as  it  had  for  their  fathers  (10:39; 
1 1 :  40) ;  the  idea  of  Jesus  as  the  leader  and  perfecter  of  faith  (12:2);  the 
emphasis  upon  the  greater  danger,  responsibility,  and  punishment  of 
apostates  (12:14  f.);  upon  the  need  of  meeting  together,  confessing  to 
the  name  of  God,  offering  the  sacrifice  of  praise,  etc.  (13:15). 

II.      SOURCES  AND  RELATIONS   OF  THE   CHRISTOLOGICAL  DOCTRINE, 
INCLUDING  AN   OUTLINE   OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHRISTOLOGY 

I.      CONSIDERATION  OF  PS.  2  :  7  AS  USED  IN  HEB.  1 :  5  AND  $  '-  $ 

In  considering  more  precisely  the  sources  and  relations  of  the  chris- 
tological  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  starting-point  will  be 
the  passage  already  discussed  with  considerable  fulness  and  found  as  a 
quotation  from  Ps.  2:7  in  Heb.  1:5  and  5:5,  viz.,  "Thou  art  my  son,  I 
today  have  begotten  thee."  This  passage  is  quoted  in  the  first  case 
(i :  5)  as  proving  the  superior  dignity  of  the  Son  over  that  of  the  angels; 
in  the  second  case  (5:5)  as  constituting  the  call  by  God  to  the  High- 
Priesthood.  It  has  been  shown  above  that  this  quotation  is  a  remnant 
of  the  adoption  Christology,  probably  the  earliest  form  of  Christology 
held  by  the  primitive  church  (Acts  2:22,  36).  It  is  not  at  all  a  propos 
of  the  situation  in  Hebrews,  as  the  Christology  of  the  writer  of  the 

446 


THE  CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS         121 

Epistle  is  certainly  not  the  adoption  Christology.  Any  literal  and  in 
fact  any  meaningful  application  of  the  phrase  in  the  connection  in 
Hebrews  (1:5  and  5:5)  is  impossible.  Where  and  when  could  and  did 
the  phrase  have  a  proper  meaning  as  applied  to  Jesus?  The  most 
satisfactory  answer  seems  to  be  furnished  by  the  words  of  Paul  in  his 
address  in  the  synagogue  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia  (Acts  13:33-39).  It  is 
true  that  this  passage  does  not  happen  to  fall  within  the  earlier  twelve 
chapters  which  clearly  represent  a  primitive  Christology.  But  a  double 
answer  to  this  objection  may  be  made.  First,  the  thought  of  the  passage 
(Acts  13:33-39)  is  very  closely  paralleled  by  various  passages  in  the 
earlier  chapters  (Acts  2:22-36;  3:18-26;  5:30-32),  although  the  words 
from  Ps.  2:7  are  not  quoted.  Secondly,  there  are  good  reasons  for 
believing  that  Luke  is  here  in  substance  following  good  sources.^  But 
this  passage  itself  is  ambiguous.  The  words  "having  raised  up  Jesus" 
of  vs.  33  may  refer  to  God's  bringing  Jesus  into  his  active  prophetic 
work  of  preaching  and  so  be  localized  in  the  Baptism  (cf.  Acts  3:22; 
13:22).*  On  the  other  hand  it  may  refer  to  the  Resurrection.3  It  would 
seem  most  probable  that  Chase's  point  is  well  taken  in  referring  Acts 
13:32  to  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  and  Acts  13:34  to  the  Resurrection,  and 
in  drawing  a  comparison  with  Rom.  1:4  where,  by  emphasizing  the 
phrase  "with  power,"  a  distinct  though  latent  reference  to  the  declara- 
tion of  Sonship  at  the  Baptism  may  be  felt. 

If  this  is  so,  then  these  two  passages  (Acts  13:32,  33  and  Rom.  1:4) 
represent  a  stage  of  christological  development  with  two  prominent  foci, 
viz.,  the  Baptism  and  the  Resurrection.''  They  are  not  mutually 
exclusive  except  to  the  severely  logical.  Both  however  were  unsatis- 
factory declarations  of  Sonship  as  primitive  Christian  thought  struggled 
in  its  polemic  with  Greek  philosophy  and  the  mystery-religions.  A 
higher  conception  of  Sonship  must  be  developed,  both  to  express  the 
wonderful  significance  of  Jesus  as  it  dawned  increasingly  upon  the  early 
Christians  and  to  cope  adequately  with  the  higher  conceptions  of  the 
Graeco-Roman  world  of  religious  thought.  The  thought  of  the  Resur- 
rection in  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  naturally  became  more  prominent  while 
the  thought  of  the  Baptism  in  connection  with  Sonship  vanished.  So 
the  most  plausible  though  not  necessary  references  of  the  quotations  of 

^  Chase,  The  Credibility  of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  179  f.;  Hamack, 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  195  f . 

2  So  Chase,  op.  cit.,  pp.  187  f. 

3  So  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Handcommentar  zum  N,T.,  ad  loc. 
4Cf.  Luke  3:22;  Betal. 

447 


122  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Ps.  2:7  in  Hebrews  (1:5;  5:5)  is  to  the  time  of  the  Resurrection.  For 
the  early  Christians  the  Resurrection  was  the  more  prominent,  but  their 
conception  of  Jesus'  experience  at  the  Baptism  did  not  fail  them.  They 
were  consistent  adoptionists.  With  Paul  the  idea  of  Sonship  by  divine 
choice  and  descent  of  the  spirit  at  the  Baptism  was  latent  and  unempha- 
sized,  if  present  at  all.  With  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
the  idea  of  Sonship  at  the  Baptism  was  gone  and  the  idea  of  Sonship  by 
the  Resurrection  was  latent  and  unemphasized.  Both  Paul  and  this 
writer  had  made  far  advance  toward  the  higher  category  of  essential 
Sonship  implying  pre-existence  and  some  approach  to  Deity.  In  certain 
circles  the  inception  of  Sonship  was  pushed  back  to  the  very  beginning 
of  the  earthly  life  and  made  dependent  directly  upon  God  himself 
(Matt.  i:i8=Luke  1:35)  and  essential,  not  merely  declarative  or 
adoptive.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  as  is  well  known,  abolishes  the  thought 
of  the  inception  of  Sonship  entirely.  Jesus  was  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  the  word  made  flesh,  the  eternal  Son  of  God. 

2.      JESUS'  SELF-ESTIMATE 

What  was  Jesus'  own  conception  of  his  Sonship  and  of  the  Baptism 
experience  in  relation  to  it  ?  The  most  varied  answers  are  given  to  this 
question.  On  the  one  hand  he  is  conceived  as  a  thoroughgoing  but  sadly 
deluded  eschatologist  (Schweitzer);  on  the  other,  by  clever  critical 
cutting  and  slashing,  every  eschatological  reference  and  thought  is 
removed  from  him  (Sharman).  Again,  by  the  orthodox  view  he  is 
credited  with  a  thought  of  himself  as  Son  of  God  and  Savior  of  men, 
such  as  Paul  or  the  Fourth  Gospel  held  of  him  (Warfield).  By  others 
(Harnack)  he  was  in  his  own  thought  of  himself  and  his  mission  a  mono- 
theist  of  the  purest  type  whose  whole  thought  and  only  thought  was  of 
God  and  the  Kingdom  of  God,  who  had  not  the  slightest  thought  of 
interjecting  himself  in  any  sense  or  to  any  degree  between  his  brother- 
men  and  God. 

The  following  presentation  of  Jesus'  thought  of  himself  is  meant  to 
be, tentative.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  mediating  views  are  apt  to  be 
unsatisfactory,  it  appears  increasingly  probable  that  in  this  case  only  a 
mediating  view  of  some  sort  will  meet  the  most  important  facts  and 
satisfy  the  situation.  At  the  heart  and  at  the  summit  of  Jesus'  religious 
life  and  thought  there  were  two  dominant  and  all-engrossing  conceptions, 
viz.,  his  conception  of  God  and  his  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
With  Jesus,  God  is  supreme,  and  never  for  one  moment  does  he  think  of 
displacing  or  supplanting  God  as  the  sole  and  supreme  object,  not  only 

448 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS         123 

of  his  own  affections  and  efforts,  but  also  of  the  affections  and  efforts  of 
his  fellow-men  (Mark  12 :  29,  30  ||).  There  can  be  no  discounting  of  this 
fact  so  strongly  emphasized  by  the  religious-historical  school  of  interpre- 
tation. And  yet  the  records  and  experience  of  primitive  Christianity 
demand  caution  in  two  directions.  In  the  first  place,  the  most  careful 
and  conscientious  historical  criticism  leaves  a  residuum  which  demands 
for  Jesus  in  his  thought  of  himself  a  unique  place,  not  only  in  the  fate 
and  fortune  of  his  nation  and  of  individual  persons  (Mark  1:22  ||; 
2:9f.;  8:28  II;  Matt.  23 129 f.=  Luke  11 147 f.;  Matt.  ii:ii=Luke  7:28; 
Mark  2:21  f.||;  Mark  10:17  f.;  Mark  10:45,  etc.),'  but  also  in  his 
relation  to  God  (Mark  i :  11  ||  and  in  Q  [second  source];  Matt.  4:  i-ii  || 
=Luke  4:1-12;  Mark  14:61  ||;  Matt.  ii:27=Luke  10:22).*  It  is 
clear  that  Jesus  possessed  unique  God-consciousness.  The  conditions  of 
possessing  it,  however,  were  not  exclusive  or  peculiar  to  himself.  He 
expected  others  to  share  it,  yet  only  through  himself  (Matt.  11:27). 
Its  uniqueness  was  not  necessarily  a  solitary,  exclusive  thing:  it  was  a 
simple  fact.^  The  incidents  and  words  which  remain  after  historical 
criticism  of  the  synoptic  picture  of  Jesus,  indicate  that  in  his  own  thought 
Jesus  became  the  way  to  God,  the  mediator  of  this  unique  God- 
consciousness  which  for  Jesus  also  implied  salvation.-*  The  liberal  school 
recognizes  this  high  place  which  Jesus  took  in  his  own  thought  and 
bearing — a  certain  commanding,  Napoleonic  attitude  in  the  moral  and 
spiritual  realm  of  God  and  of  national  and  human  life.  But  with  them 
it  is  simply  the  regular  attitude  of  the  prophet.  It  is  doubtful  however 
whether  such  an  explanation  will  prove  satisfactory.  Some  special 
explanation  is  demanded,  and  need  not  be  feared  provided  one  remem- 
bers constantly  that  it  is  the  fact  of  Jesus'  consciousness  and  men's 
experience  that  is  of  supreme  and  permanent  value,  not  the  explanation, 
even  though  it  be  the  right  one.s 

» Weinel,  Biblische  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  sec.  32,  recognizes  this  quite 
keenly. 

'  Harnack,  What  Is  Christianity  ?  p.  1 28,  minimizes  the  depth  and  richness  of  this 
passage  (Matt.  11:27).  In  its  original  form  it  was  probably  less  Johannine  in  its 
atmosphere  and  significance,  but  in  its  clear  depths  rich  personal  relationships  are 
mirrored  rather  than  mere  knowledge. 

3  Weinel,  op.  cit.,  sec.  S3,  S.  1856. 

*  Weinel,  op.  cit.,  sec.  24. 

5  The  liberal  school  has  done  splendid  work  in  presenting  the  historical  Jesus. 
Because  of  the  excellence  of  its  work  one  is  reluctant  to  criticize.  But  it  is  a  fact  that 
in  one  sentence  they  put  such  a  high  estimate  upon  Jesus  that  they  place  him  per- 
manently beyond  our  reach  (Bousset,  Jesus,  p.  149:  "He  is,  and  must  remain,  beyond 

449 


124  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

In  the  second  place,  caution  against  over-accentuating  the  supremacy 
of  God  in  Jesus'  thought  must  be  corrected  by  remembering  that  preg- 
nant word  of  Jesus  himself  that  a  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save  in 
his  own  country  and  among  his  own  kin  and  in  his  own  house  (Mark 
6:4=Matt.  13:57).  Rarely  is  a  great  man's  significance  rightly  esti- 
mated by  his  own  generation  and  his  own  people.  But  does  this  not 
apply  to  the  great  man  himself?  Can  he  see  himself  in  his  true  sig- 
nificance ?  Can  he  evaluate  himself  and  his  work  precisely  ?  And  even 
if  he  can,  need  he  consciously  insist  on  that  evaluation  and  the  position 
consonant  therewith  ?  In  the  increasing  recognition  of  the  contribution 
of  the  general  social  religious  consciousness  to  the  Christianity  of  the  first 
century  is  it  not  necessary  to  make  room  for  an  added  increment  to  the 
significance  of  Jesus,  recognized  not  by  himself  but  by  the  primitive 
Christian  community?  The  immense  results  following  in  the  wake  of 
Jesus'  life  and  death  surely  contributed  something  to  the  elucidation  of 
Jesus'  significance,  much  as  the  results  following  upon  the  publication  of 
the  origin  of  species  contributed  something  to  the  elucidation  of  the 
significance  of  Darwin.  The  results  of  the  Christian  movement  may 
quite  legitimately  show  that  Jesus'  significance  was  greater,  his  position 
higher  than  he  himself  claimed,  indeed  than  he  himself  was  conscious  of. 
It  depends  on  a  careful  consideration  of  all  the  facts,  not  merely  and 
only  upon  arriving  at  Jesus'  own  self-estimate.' 

Next  to  the  thought  of  God  as  Father,  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  aroused  the  enthusiasm  and  engaged  the  attention  and  effort  of 
Jesus.  His  thought  of  the  Kingdom  was  not  purely  eschatological 
(Schweitzer),  not  purely  inner  and  ethical  (Hamack) ;  not  wholly  future, 
not  wholly  present.  Jesus  changed  the  meaning  and  content  of  the  terms 
ELingdom  of  God  and  Messiah  for  the  better  in  much  the  same  way  as 

our  reach"),  while  in  another  sentence  they  tend  to  minimize  his  person  and  function. 
Their  high  estimate  of  Jesus  leaves  the  impression  of  being  somewhat  reluctantly 
given.  They  reject  the  orthodox  explanation  of  his  uniqueness  or  divinity,  yet  they 
hold  to  his  uniqueness  without  apparently  feeling  under  obligation  to  give  another 
and  better  explanation.  They  exalt  Jesus  beyond  the  confines  and  experiences  of 
humanity  as  himianity  is  regularly  considered,  while  they  expect  their  readers  never- 
theless to  consider  Jesus  as  being  wholly  and  only  within  the  human  category.  An 
explanation  of  some  kind  is  called  for.  The  real  heresy  (if  the  unfortunate  word  may  be 
permitted)  is  not  that  view  which  rejects  the  orthodox  or  any  other  explanation  of  the 
uniqueness  of  Jesus,  but  the  view  which  holds  to  the  uniqueness  of  Jesus  and  yet  says 
that  no  special  explanation  of  it  is  necessary.  Bousset  however  makes  some  very 
helpful  suggestions  in  "The  Significance  of  the  Personality  of  Jesus  for  Belief,"  Pro- 
ceedings of  Fifth  International  Congress  of  Free  Christianity,  1910,  p.  208. 
*  Case,  The  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  272. 

450 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS         125 

certain  men  changed  the  meaning  and  content  of  the  word  "tyrant"  for 
the  worse.  Jesus  eliminated  the  political  element  so  prominent  in  the 
Jewish  thought  of  his  day  (Mark  ii:io;  Acts  i:6,  etc.;  cf.  the  Zealot 
movement).  Yet  the  Kingdom  was  with  him  no  organization,  at  least 
in  any  formal  sense.  It  was  simply  the  company  of  those  who  with 
faith  in  God  lived  or  sought  to  live  the  life  of  purity,  simplicity,  honesty, 
freedom,  humility,  service,  and  love,  such  as  was  pleasing  to  God  and 
necessary  to  communion  with  the  father — such  as  he  himself  enjoyed. 
To  be  sure,  this  new  life  was  something  more  radical  and  intense  than 
the  mere  stringing  together  of  the  foregoing  words  indicates.  It  might 
be  described  as  a  new  birth,  but  Jesus  had  no  technical  or  doctrinal 
name  for  it.  Faith  in  the  Father  whom  Jesus  revealed,  so  to  speak, 
released  an  inner  spring  which  gave  the  impulse  to  return  to  God  like 
the  Prodigal  in  penitence,  prayer,  and  devotion  to  God's  will  as  supreme. 
Forgiveness,  freedom  from  care  and  sorrow,  confidence  in  the  goodness 
and  care  of  God,  mingled  with  an  element  of  fear,  and  hope  for  the 
future,  follow.  Men  thus  living  together  in  love  to  God  and  their  fel- 
lows form  the  heart  and  substance  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  Jesus' 
conception  of  it. 

Thus  it  may  be  said  that  in  substance,  even  if  not  in  expression  and 
form,  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  Jesus'  conception  is  something  present, 
as  some  of  his  parables  teach  (Mark  4: 30-32  =  Matt.  13:31  f.  =  Luke 
13 :  18-21).  The  little  company  of  the  disciples  was  the  beginning  of  the 
Kingdom  (Mark  10:42  ||).  But  this  is  not  all.  Jesus  realized,  per- 
haps increasingly,  that  there  was  what  he  conceived  to  be  a  kingdom 
of  this  world,  a  kingdom  of  Satan  over  against  the  Kingdom  of  God 
(Mark  i :  12,  13  ||).  In  the  healing  of  men,  in  the  casting  out  of  demons 
(Matt.  12:28),  in  the  work  both  of  himself  and  his  disciples,  he  saw 
the  Kingdom  of  God  coming  (Luke  10:18;  Mark  3:23).  He  evi- 
dently felt  that  by  more  enthusiastic  effort  on  both  his  own  part  and 
that  of  his  disciples  he  could  hasten  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  (Mark 
1:35-39).^  But  he  felt  that  the  Kingdom  was  not  fully  come  (Matt. 
6: 10= Luke  11:2),  yea,  that  it  could  not  fully  come  except  by  a  world- 
catastrophe  which  was  at  the  same  time  an  act  of  God  and  a  judgment  of 
God  which  would  set  the  seal  upon  his  work  and  give  him  the  supreme 
place  in  the  Kingdom  (Mark  10:35  f.  ||).  Jesus  also  felt  his  death  as  in 
some  sense  a  necessary  service  for  this  coming  of  the  Kingdom  (Mark 
8:27  f.).  In  all  this  Jesus  shared  the  national  and  apocalyptic  ideas  of 
his  time.    Doubtless  this  element  has  been  exaggerated  by  his  reporters. 

^  Scott,  The  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah,  p.  134. 

451 


126  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

They  put  undue  emphasis  upon  that  which  to  them  was  supreme  (Acts 
1 :6  f.).  How  much  of  this  apocalyptic  element  Jesus  himself  shared  no 
one  can  say  precisely,  but  that  he  shared  some  of  the  eschatological 
views  cannot  successfully  be  denied,  though  he  was  very  sober  and 
restrained  (Mark  13:32;  Acts  1:6).  Technically  Jesus  was  not  an 
apocalyptist,  though  he  shared  some  of  the  apocalyptical  views  of  his 
day/  If  apocalyptic  ideas  had  not  been  ready  to  hand,  Jesus'  con- 
sciousness and  knowledge  of  God  as  Father,  as  good  and  holy,  the 
enthusiasm  of  his  life  with  God  must  have  developed  some  other  con- 
ception of  the  future  final  victory  of  God  and  righteousness.  Jesus  did 
not  have  the  view  of  a  world  developing  according  to  the  modern  scientific 
evolutionary  conception.  He  could  conceive  of  the  consummation  of  the 
Kingdom  only  in  the  form  of  a  personal  victory  of  God  and  his  Kingdom 
over  Satan  and  his  Kingdom.  This  must  take  some  time;  it  must 
depend  upon  the  will  of  God  and  upon  the  act  of  God.  Hence  Jesus'  use 
of  apocalyptic  views.  But  they  do  not  express  the  heart  of  his  thought 
and  message. 

But  Jesus  felt  himself  called  to  be  the  chief  instrument  in  God's 
hand  of  bringing  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  No  doubt  the  acceptance  of 
this  ofiicial  duty  of  Messiahship  sprang  from  Jesus'  own  deep  and 
distinctive  religious  life  in  relation  to  the  Father,  and  his  conception  of 
the  messianic  function  was  assimilated  in  large  measure  to  his  conception 
of  life  in  communion  and  harmony  with  God  and  in  earnest  and  aggres- 
sive fulfilment  of  his  will.  He  poured  into  the  title  a  new  meaning 
distilled  from  the  depths  of  his  own  deep  religious  experience  of  God  and 
life.  Most  probably  he  felt  the  messianic  call  in  the  Baptism  experience. 
If  so,  it  was  rooted  in  his  sense  of  filial  sonship  which  was  also  personal, 
ethical,  religious.*  The  fact  that  the  current  messianic  doctrine  was  not 
in  harmony  with  this  deep  sense  of  sonship  compelled  Jesus  to  withhold 
the  idea  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  When  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah, 
he  wished  the  claim  to  be  based,  not  on  signs  or  on  outward  display, 
but  upon  inward  merit  and  reality.  Hence  he  did  not  proclaim  himself 
Messiah,  but  expected  his  disciples  and  the  people  to  discover  it  for 
themselves  (Mark  8:27  ||;  Matt.  11 14= Luke  7:22).  He  in  a  large 
measure  spiritualized  the  concept  of  the  Messiah  as  he  did  that  of  the 
Law  and  the  Kingdom. 

'  Weinel,  op.  cit.,  sec.  8. 

»  Cf.  Luke  3: 22,  cod.  D,  "Thou  art  my  son,  today  have  I  begotten  thee,"  which 
reading  may  have  been  taken  from  Q  by  Luke;  Wellhausen,  Einleitung,  S.  74;  Haraack, 
Spriiche  und  Reden  Jesu,  S.  136,  218  f. 

452 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  127 

There  is  much  uncertainty  about  the  significance  of  the  term  Son  of 
Man  in  Jesus'  thought  and  usage,  and  the  uncertainty  seems  to  be 
increasing  rather  than  diminishing.  What  was  the  origin  and  significance 
of  the  term?^  Did  Jesus  use  the  term  of  himself,  and  if  so  to  what 
extent  and  with  what  meaning?  Was  the  term  a  current  one  for  the 
Messiah  in  Jesus'  day  and  if  so,  how  could  he  use  it  of  himself  and  keep 
his  Messiahship  secret  till  toward  the  close  of  his  ministry  ?  Difficulty 
and  some  uncertainty  hover  about  the  answers  to  these  questions.  It 
seems  clear  that  in  apocalyptic  circles  of  Jesus'  day  the  phrase  "Son 
of  Man"  was  used  of  the  Messiah.  In  fact  it  gives  to  o  xp'o-'^os  its 
particular  New  Testament  content.^  It  is  to  be  noted  however  that  there 
is  considerable  variation  in  the  form  of  the  title  indicating  in  all 
probability  a  lack  of  definiteness  and  fixedness  in  its  meaning. 3  All 
things  considered,  it  is  entirely  probable  that  Jesus  used  the  term,  though 
to  what  extent  and  with  what  significance  it  is  difficult  to  say.  A  study 
of  the  passages  in  which  the  term  occurs  reveals  two  distinct  classes,  the 
one  speaking  of  the  Son  of  Man  as  lowly,  destitute,  suffering,  a  self-title 
of  Jesus;  the  other,  as  exalted,  coming  upon  the  clouds  of  glory,  like  the 
Son  of  Man  of  apocalyptic.  Weinel^  holds  that  in  this  clear  distinction 
there  lies  at  once  the  main  problem  in  connection  with  the  title  "  Son  of 
Man"  and  the  solution  of  it.  Only  the  latter,  the  eschatological 
passages,  are  really  genuine,  for  only  Jesus  could  say,  "The  Son  of 
Man  will  come."  Others  would  say,  if  the  title  denoted  Jesus,  "The 
Son  of  Man  will  come  again."  But  though  Jesus  spoke  of  the  Son  of 
Man  as  another  person,  he  himself  considered  himself  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  so  his  reporters  were  not  substantially  wrong  in  giving  him  the  title 
in  the  other  group  of  passages.^  Weinel  rejects  the  idea  that  Jesus  may 
have  used  the  term  just  because  it  was  many-sided  and  somewhat 
enigmatic.  Someone  would  surely  have  asked  its  significance,  as  the 
Fourth  Gospel  represents  the  Jews  doing  later.^    Is  this  argument  not 

*  Babylonian,  say  Hommel  {Expository  Times,  XI,  341  f.)  and  Zimmern  (Archiv 
filr  Religionswiss.,  II,  165,  1899),  connecting  it  with  the  Adapa-Marduk  myth;  cf.  also 
W.  B.  Kristensen,  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  191 1,  De  Term,  "Zoon  des  Menschen,"  S. 
1-38 ;  F.  P.  Badham,  ibid.,  The  title  "  Son  of  Man,"  S.  395-448. 

'Bookof  Enoch,  36:1  ff.;  46:1  ff.;  48a:  2, 11;  z^Sb :  2  et  passim;  d.  V oh,  Judische 
Eschatologie,  S.  214. 

3  Volz,  op.  cit.,  S.  214:  "Der  Wechsel  im  Ausdruck  zeigt  aber,  dass  der  Terminus 
noch  nicht  fixiert  war." 

*Bib.  Theol.  d.  N.T.,  S.  199. 

s  Weinel,  Bib.  Theol.  d.  N.T.,  sec.  34,  "Der  Menschensohn." 

^  John  12 134:  Who  is  this  Son  of  Man  ? 

453 


128  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

too  hypothetical  and,  so  to  speak,  too  clear-cut?  There  were  various 
forms  of  the  messianic  hope  current  in  Jesus'  day  in  different  circles. 
There  was  the  narrow  conception  of  the  Zealots;  there  was  the  some- 
what wider  national  hope  which  thought  of  the  Messiah  as  Son  of  David 
(Luke  20:41);  there  was  the  wider  apocalyptic  conception  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  current  possibly  only  in  comparatively  limited  circles;  and  there 
were  various  shades  between/  Among  the  people  with  whom  Jesus 
worked,  and  even  with  his  disciples,  Jesus  might  conceivably  have 
occasionally  used  the  title  Son  of  Man,  with  more  or  less  distinct  reference 
to  himself,  even  before  he  openly  declared  himself  to  them  as  the 
Messiah.  But  the  element  of  uncertainty  increases  here.  It  is  clear 
however  that  for  some  special  reason  Jesus  preferred  the  title  Son  of 
Man  rather  than  Son  of  David  or  Son  of  God,  and  that  he  used  it  at 
first  possibly  with  latent  but  finally  with  open  reference  to  himself. 
The  same  holds  true  substantially  of  the  title  "Messiah."  That  which 
impelled  him  to  use  these  titles  was  his  profound  sense  of  Sonship.  The 
titles  formed  the  mold,  the  sense  of  Sonship  gave  to  them  their  essential 
content. 

Though  very  restrained  in  depicting  the  future,  Jesus  evidently 
expected  (in  spite  of  death,  which  he  felt  to  be  in  some  sense  a  means  to 
an  end)  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  the  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  some  time  in  the  near  but  unknown  future,  by  some  sort 
of  special  intervention  of  God  himself.  Possibly  he  felt  assured  of  his 
own  restoration,  in  spite  of  death,  and  so  spoke  of  it  to  his  disciples  that 
on  looking  back  they  were  satisfied  that  he  had  been  speaking  to  them  of 
his  resurrection.  With  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  Jesus 
associated  judgment,  probably  with  himself  as  judge  under  God.  Prob- 
ably too  he  expected  a  general  resurrection  of  some  sort  (Mark  10:40; 
Matt.  8:11,  i2=Luke  13:28  f.). 

Secondary  then  in  Jesus'  estimate  of  himself,  but  genuine,  is  his 
conception  of  himself  as  Messiah,  of  the  future  consummation  of  the 
Kingdom  accompanied  by  resurrection  and  judgment  and  the  over- 
throw of  Satan  and  his  kingdom;  primary,  is  his  profound  consciousness 
of  God  and  life  with  God  begetting  within  him  the  conviction  that 
salvation  (though  he  does  not  use  the  term)  consisted  in  or  perhaps 
rather  issued  from  this  knowledge  of  God  and  life  with  God,  and  that  he 
not  only  in  his  example  and  his  teaching  but  in  some  way  in  his  person 
mediated  this  knowledge  of  God  and  salvation  which  was  something  such 

» Heitmiiller,  art.  "Jesus  Christus,"  II,  sb,  Die  Religion  in  Geschickte  und  Gegen- 
wart,  Bd.  III. 

454 


THE  CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE   HEBREWS         129 

as  not  even  the  prophets  had  known,  something  new  in  the  world  (Matt. 
io:37=Luke  14:26;  Matt.  8:2i=Luke  9:60;  Matt.  i3:i7=Luke 
10:23;  Matt.  11:27  f.).  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  Jesus 
required  that  men  should  believe  in  him  for  this  salvation,  as  the  Fourth 
Gospel  represents,  though  this  would  seem  to  be  a  very  natural  and 
easy  advance  to  make.  It  means  only  that  Jesus  in  his  own  thought 
felt  himself  to  be  in  some  sense  a  mediator,  yes,  the  (Matt.  11:27  f.) 
mediator  in  actual  fact  between  God  and  men.  In  the  last  analysis, 
however,  the  difference  on  this  point  between  the  synoptic  and  the 
Johannine  representation  is  more  one  of  form  than  one  of  substance.  In 
Johannine  terminology  the  synoptic  Jesus  felt  himself  to  be  the  revelation 
of  God  and  the  "way"  to  God. 

3.      PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  CHRISTOLOGY 

From  this  tentative  statement  of  Jesus'  self -estimate  we  pass  to  the 
earliest  Christian  views  of  Jesus,  the  earliest  Christian  Christology.  It 
has  been  commonly  felt  that  from  the  time  of  their  conviction  of  Jesus' 
resurrection  the  first  Christians  began  forthwith  to  depart  from  Jesus' 
conception  of  himself.  They  began  to  lay  the  emphasis  upon  the 
secondary  elements  above  mentioned  and  not  upon  the  primary  elements. 
This  is  true  only  in  a  measure.  They  laid  emphasis  on  both  primary  and 
secondary  elements  in  different  degrees  and  at  different  times  and  places. 

Beyond  reasonable  doubt  the  earliest  form  of  Christology  was  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  During  Jesus'  life  some  at  least  believed, 
perhaps  rather  hoped,  that  he  would  prove  to  be  the  Messiah  and  would 
declare  himself  as  such.  But  it  was  only  their  faith  in  the  Resurrection 
of  Jesus  in  which  God  declared  him  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  with 
power  (Acts  2 :36;  Rom.  1:4)  that  crystallized  this  hope  into  an  undying 
conviction.  The  early  chapters  of  Acts  (chaps.  1-12)  represent  this 
earliest  Christology  for  which  the  Resurrection  is  decisive  and  pivotal. 
It  is  clearly  adoptive.  God  wrought  through  Jesus,  and  because  of  his 
approval  of  him  accepted  and  declared  him  Messiah  and  Lord  by  the 
resurrection  (Acts  2:22  f.;  5:42).  God  glorified  and  exalted  him 
(Acts  5:30  f.).  God  would  send  him  again  at  the  end  of  all  things 
(Acts  3:20,  21).  These  experiences  and  hopes  established  a  new  and 
peculiar  kind  of  life  (Acts  5 :  20)  initiated  by  repentance,  faith  in  Jesus 
as  Messiah,  and  baptism  in  his  name  (Acts  2:38;  8:16),  and  character- 
ized by  forgiveness  of  sins  through  Christ  (Acts  3 :  26)  and  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  his  name  (Acts  5:32).  This  was  at  least  one  if  not  the 
only  form  of  the  earliest  Christology. 

455 


130  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

But,  as  already  noted,  these  conceptions  of  Jesus  immediately  con- 
sequent upon  his  resurrection  were  not  really  the  first  beginnings  of 
Christology,  though  very  naturally  they  appeared  to  many  to  be  so  then 
and  still  appear  to  many  to  be  so,  owing  to  the  overshadowing  importance 
of  the  Resurrection.  Unless  violence  is  applied  to  the  sources,  it  is  clear 
that  sometime  before  his  death  Jesus  was  regarded  by  some  as  prophet, 
by  some  as  Messiah,  whether  as  Son  of  David  or  as  Son  of  Man  or  as 
Son  of  God.  From  both  sources,  Mark  and  the  Sayings  of  Jesus,  it  is 
clear  that  the  disciples  and  the  very  earliest  tradition  well  remembered 
the  discussions  about  the  Messiahship  and  the  strange  experiences  and 
high  claims  of  Jesus  in  this  regard,  especially  toward  the  close  of  his 
ministry.  How  did  they  relate  this  to  their  idea  that  the  resurrection 
constituted  Jesus  the  Messiah?  They  simply  carried  the  adoptive 
theory  of  the  Messiahship  back  into  the  history  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
Along  one  line  they  attached  it  to  the  experience  upon  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration  (Mark  9:7  ||),  but  with  more  assurance  they  attached 
the  idea  of  adoption  as  Messiah  and  Son  to  the  Baptism  experience 
(Mark  i:ii  ||)  in  which  Jesus,  according  to  the  early  Christian  view, 
received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  which  constituted  him  Son.^  The  tes- 
timony of  the  sources  that  Jesus  used  the  title  Son  of  Man  with  either 
open  or  latent  reference  to  himself  seems  at  first  to  tell  against  the  idea 
that  the  earliest  Christians  carried  back  the  adoptive  idea  to  the  Baptism 
experience.  But  apart  from  the  possibility  of  Weinel's  explanation,'  the 
phrase  *'Son  of  Man"  with  its  accompanying  idea  of  pre-existence  was 
too  limited  and  too  indefinite  to  hinder  the  employment  of  the  adoptive 
idea  to  explain  the  experiences  and  words  of  Jesus  which  the  disciples 
and  earliest  Christians  very  well  remembered.  Possibly  the  adoptive 
idea,  which  was  truly  Semitic,  vied  for  some  time  with  its  later  rival,  the 
"Son  of  Man"  or  pre-existence  idea,  which  was  in  part  Greek  or  at  least 
Hellenistic  as  well  as  Jewish. 

*  Possibly  the  true  text  of  Luke  3:22  is  that  of  codex  D:  "Thou  art  my  son: 
today  have  I  begotten  thee,"  thus  meeting  the  word  of  Ps.  2:7  with  the  occasion  of 
the  Baptism.  Cf.  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  in  description  of  the  Baptism:  "My  Son,  in 
all  the  prophets  I  waited  for  you  till  you  should  come  and  I  should  find  rest  in  you. 
For  you  are  my  rest,  you  are  my  firstborn  son  who  rulest  forever."  Again,  inter- 
preting the  Baptism  as  the  occasion  of  the  adoption  to  Messiahship  and  Sonship 
explains  the  otherwise  extremely  puzzling  aorist,  ciJ56/rt?<ra  (Mk.  i:  11),  in  a  perfectly 
natural  way,  as  an  inceptive  aorist. 

» Bib.  Theol.  d.  N.  Test.,  S.  198. 


456 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS         131 
4.      THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  PAUL 

At  this  Stage  the  development  of  christological  thought  is  taken  up 
and  carried  on  by  Paul.  For  Paul  too  with  the  Christian  community, 
the  Resurrection  means  that  Jesus  is  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  (Phil. 
2:9-11).  Probably  in  this  passage  as  in  Rom.  1:4  there  is  a  trace,  a 
remnant  of  the  adoptive  idea  of  the  earliest  Christian  community.  But 
in  reality  Paul  had  discarded  the  adoptive  idea  probably  as  too  super- 
ficial and  not  at  all  adequate  to  the  proper  expression  of  his  profound 
experience  of,  and  thought  upon,  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ.  Paul 
used  rather  the  category  of  pre-existence  and  the  idea  of  Son  of  Man 
as  the  better  expression  of  the  Messiahship  and  Sonship  of  Jesus.  Paul 
chose  and  elaborated  this  form  because  it  was  natural  to  him.  He 
belonged  to  the  educated  Jewish  and  Hellenistic  circles  where  the  Son 
of  Man  concept  which  he  transferred  to  Jesus  as  Messiah  was  familiar. 
Yet,  as  Paul  does  not  wholly  give  up  the  idea  of  God's  favoritism  for 
Israel  as  a  nation  (Rom.  11 :  25,  26),  so  naturally  he  holds  to  the  Son  of 
David  idea  of  Jesus  as  Messiah.  But  this  is  merely  according  to  the 
flesh,  and  Paul  lays  little  stress  upon  this.  With  Paul  there  begins  an 
elaborate  development  of  the  higher  category.  For  the  expression  of  his 
experience  of  Jesus  and  salvation  in  him  Paul  lays  hold  of  elements  from 
various  Hellenistic  thought-circles  of  his  day  including  the  mystery- 
religions.  On  the  basis  of  his  personal  experience,  aided  by  thoughts  of 
the  Hebrew  prophets  as  well  as  of  the  mystery-religions,  Paul  develops 
the  original  doctrine  of  mystical  union  with  Christ  by  faith.  By  the 
death  of  Christ  through  faith,  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
forgiveness,  new  life,  new  power,  new  hope  for  the  coming  age,  and 
union  with  Christ — all  which  with  many  added  elements  constitute 
salvation — are  secured.  Of  Paul,  though  in  a  lesser  degree,  it  may  be 
said  as  it  was  said  of  Jesus  that  soteriology  not  Christology  is  his  main 
concern. 

But  Paul  has  also  an  elaborate  Christology.  The  term  "Son  of 
Man"  falls  away  and  in  its  place  comes  the  idea  of  the  heavenly  man, 
the  second  Adam,  probably  very  closely  related  to  the  Son  of  Man  idea. 
Jesus  is  identified  with  this  pre-existent  heavenly  man,  the  second 
Adam.  But  this  heavenly  man  is  also  Son  of  God.  Paul  nowhere 
reveals  just  in  what  sense  he  considers  Jesus  Son  of  God.  Rom.  1:4 
may  very  plausibly  be  interpreted  so  that  Jesus  is  constituted  "Son"  by 
the  Resurrection.  But  this  adoptive  idea  can  hardly  express  PauFs  full 
thought.  He  considers  Jesus  a  spirit-being  (I  Cor.  15:45;  II  Cor.  3:17), 
the  firstborn  of  all  creation  (Col.  i :  14  f.),  who  for  a  time  dwelt  upon  the 

457 


132  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

earth  (II  Cor.  8 : 9)  and  was  restored  to  greater  glory  than  before  (Phil. 
2:6  f.).  This  spirit-being  was  Son  of  God,  but  in  what  sense?  The 
Hebrew  feeling  of  Sonship  through  sympathy,  likeness,  love  is  not 
excluded  (Col.  1:13),  but  probably  Paul  thought,  if  he  thought  upon 
it  specially,  of  Sonship  in  some  of  the  Greek  forms.  It  is  clear  that  the 
Logos-doctrine  is  present  in  Paul,  latent  though  not  expressed^  (I  Cor. 
8:6;  11:3).  Christ  is  the  creator  and  bond  of  the  cosmos  (Col.  1:16). 
He  is  the  image  of  God  (II  Cor.  4:4).  A  certain  degree  of  figurative, 
spiritual,  and  ethical  meaning  must  not  be  denied  to  these  and  similar 
terms.  But  they  clearly  have  a  metaphysical  force,  and  it  is  likely  that 
Paul  conceived  of  Christ  as  a  second  God  somewhat  after  the  fashion  of 
Philo,  with  probably  additional  touches  from  the  atmosphere  and  thought 
of  the  mystery-religions  and  of  Stoicism.  Paul  also  identified  the 
heavenly  Christ  with  the  Spirit  (II  Cor.  3:7).'  It  is  impossible  here  to  go 
into  the  question  of  the  relation  of  Paul  and  the  New  Testament  as  a 
whole  to  the  Hellenistic  syncretism  of  the  mystery-religions  of  his  day. 
How  much  of  what  has  hitherto  been  placed  genetically  in  direct  rela- 
tion either  (i)  to  the  historical  Jesus,  (2)  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  (3) 
to  Alexandrianism  must  rather  be  related  directly  to  the  religious 
Hellenistic  syncretism  of  the  mystery-religions  and  considered  rather  as 
a  parallel  to  Old  Testament  thought?  In  1903  Heinrich  Zimmern, 
after  outlining  the  questions,  says  that  investigation  into  this  problem 
is  as  yet  in  its  early  stages  and  no  definite  answer  can  be  given.3  His 
statement  will  still  hold,  though  much  advance  since  then  has  been 
made,  with  the  result  that  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  affirm  that 
much  of  New  Testament  thought  of  the  person  of  Jesus  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  first  interpreters  of  Jesus  in  their  effort  to  set  forth  from 
their  experience  his  supreme  significance,  used  the  terms  and  thought- 
forms  current  in  the  atmosphere  and  religious  thought  of  their  day .4 
^  Weinel,  op.  cit.,  S.  368a.  » Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  S.  39. 

3  Zimmern,  Keilinschriften  und  Bibel:  "Eine  definitive  Antwort  lasst  sich  bis 
jetzt  noch  auf  keine  dieser  die  schwierigsten  Probleme  der  orientalischen  Religions- 
geschichte  beriihrenden  fragen  geben  ....  von  einer  endgiiltigen  Losung  dieser 
Probleme  noch  keine  Rede  sein  kann,  die  Erorterung  iiber  sie  vielmehr  noch  in  den 
ersten  Anfangen  steht." 

4  Cf .  also  Zimmern,  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament, 3  S.  372-94,  and 
the  whole  chapter  "Der  Christus,  Jesus"  in  his  Keilinschriften  und  Bibel.  The  whole 
subject  is  receiving  intense  attention  at  present,  but  there  is  no  justification  for 
the  extreme  position  taken  by  Drews  as  a  result  of  it  that  there  was  no  historical 
Jesus.  This  is  a  wholly  unwarranted  interpretation  of  the  facts  which  rather  go  to 
show  simply  that  to  a  greater  degree  than  has  been  hitherto  supposed  the  formal, 
doctrinal,  ritual,  largely  external  portion  of  Christianity  was  a  part  of  the  religious 
milieu  of  the  time  and  indeed  in  a  large  measure  grew  out  of  it. 

458 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS  133 

Presumably  these  elements  from  the  mystery-religions,  whether  Graeco- 
Persian  or  Graeco-Egyptian,  were  mediated  to  Paul  by  the  popular 
eclectic  philosophy  of  the  day.  They  are  in  all  probability  the  following: 
(i)  the  idea  of  Jesus'  pre-existence  as  the  heavenly  man,  the  second 
Adam,  a  divine  spirit-being  who  was  also  Creator  of  the  world,  Son  of 
God  and  heavenly  man;  cf.  Adapa-Marduk,  son  of  Ea,  and  world- 
creator;  (2)  the  idea  of  Jesus  as  sent  into  the  world  by  God  appearing  as 
Savior  and  destined  to  be  the  inaugurator  of  the  new  era  (Gal.  4:4);  cf. 
Mithra's  role  in  the  Persian  cult;  (3)  the  idea  of  the  temporary  humilia- 
tion and  suffering  of  Christ;  cf.  Osiris  in  the  Egyptian  cult  and  the  star- 
deities.  Sin,  Samas,  and  Istar  in  the  Babylonian  cult ;  (4)  the  idea  of  the 
Resurrection  and  exaltation  and  coming  again  of  Christ;  (5)  the  idea  of 
two  opposing  worlds  with  the  thought  that  Christ  shall  reign  till  he  shall 
conquer  all  enemies,  even  death. ^ 

Paul  laid  great  emphasis  upon  eschatology,  especially  in  the  earlier 
part  of  his  life  and  work.  As  soon  as  he  accepted  the  historical  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah  he  assigned  to  him  the  role  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  whom  he 
already  had  in  mind.  The  period  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  was  a 
temporary  and  preparatory  period  of  humiliation  and  suffering.  But 
Jesus  would  come  again  and  fulfil  the  eschatological  role  of  the  Jewish 
Messiah.  With  the  coming  of  Christ  the  dead  would  be  raised  (II 
Thess.  2 : 1-12  if  Pauline;  I  Cor.,  chap.  15),  the  living  would  be  changed 
or  transformed,  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ  would  be  set  (I  Thess. 
2:19,  20;  II  Cor.  5:10;  11:15),  all  enemies  and  evil,  including  death, 
would  be  overcome,  ending  in  the  final  consummation  of  the  messianic 
Kingdom  and  the  surrender  by  Christ  of  his  high  prerogative  as  mediator 
and  vicegerent,  so  that  God  might  be  immediate  ruler  and  "all  in  air 
(I  Cor.  15:24-28).  Eschatology  is  prominent  in  Paul.  It  is  urged  as 
an  impulse  to  worthy  practical  Christian  living  (I  Cor.  15:58)  and  as 
the  consummation  of  salvation  and  life  (Rom.  13:11). 

5.      DIVERGENT  MOVEMENTS  AFTER  PAUL 

But  this  highly  developed  christological  doctrine  of  Paul,  with  its 
accompanying  elaborate  theology  and  profound  mysticism  and  scant 
emphasis  upon  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  was  not  wholly  satisfactory  to 
the  primitive  Christian  church.  In  substance  Paul's  view  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  Son  of  Man,  Son  of  God,  a  divine,  pre-existent  spirit-being, 
whose  earthly  life  was  a  short  period  of  humiliation  and  veiled  glory  and 

»  Cf.  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery- Religions  (1913). 

459 


134  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

power,  was  accepted  by  the  primitive  church,  but  various  and  consider- 
able modifications  were  made  in  different  directions. 

It  was  a  striking  conviction,  gained  after  much  anguish  and  struggle 
of  mind  and  soul,  that  the  one  who  appeared  to  Paul  on  the  way  to 
Damascus  was  none  other  than  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  risen  and  living,  and 
that  he  was  the  Messiah.  The  result  was  that  Paul  applied  to  the 
historical  Jesus  many  concepts  which  were  proper  and  becoming  only  to 
an  abstract  figure  of  the  religious  and  philosophical  imagination — ideas 
whose  Heimat  was  the  world  of  the  eternal  and  invisible.  The  tendency 
of  the  Pauline  Chris tology  was  to  lose  the  historical  figure  of  Jesus  in  the 
drapings  of  religious  and  philosophical  ideas.  This  tendency  is  easily 
discoverable  in  Paul  himself  on  comparing  his  earliest  with  his  latest 
works  (IThess.  vs.  Col.).  In  it  there  lay  the  subtle  danger  of  the 
so-called  "entangling  alliance"  of  history  on  the  one  hand,  and  religion 
and  philosophy  on  the  other,  an  alliance  which  apparently  defies  dis- 
entangling. The  natural  result  was  divergent  movements,  one  radical, 
leading  to  a  still  greater  emphasis  of  the  eternal,  a  second  apocalyptic, 
and  a  third  reactionary,  emphasizing  history. 

a)  The  reactionary  movement. — The  reactionary  movement  was 
probably  first  in  time  after  Paul.  Men,  some  of  them  Paul's  associates 
in  his  work,  none  of  them  associates  of  Jesus,  accepted  indeed  the  Pauline 
identification  of  the  Meissiah,  Son  of  Man  and  Logos  with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  but  felt  that  Paul  made  too  meager  a  use  of  the  detailed 
information  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  preserved  in  the  tradition 
of  the  early  community  and  in  part  written  down  in  various  fragmen- 
tary documents.  This  information  was  needed  especially  for  the  gentile 
mission.  Thus  we  find  the  synoptists,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
counteracting  or  perhaps  complementing  the  christological  doctrine  of 
Paul.  In  the  main  they  accept  the  Pauline  doctrine,  but  they  add  the 
outlines  of  the  actual  historical  figure  adapted  to  be  sure  in  many 
respects  to  the  later  doctrine. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  (65-70  a.d.),  the  oldest  of  our  present  Gospels 
at  least,  is  interested  chiefly — almost  solely — in  the  public  activity  and 
ministry  of  Jesus,  his  healing  and  miracle-working  power,  and  but 
slightly  in  his  teaching.  Mark  considered  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  but 
like  Paul,  does  not  reveal  how  or  in  what  sense.  His  quoting  of  the 
remark  of  the  centurion  at  the  cross  (Mark  15:39)  probably  indicates 
Greek  leanings,  and  it  is  likely  that  Mark  with  Paul  considered  Jesus  as 
essentially  a  divine  spirit-being  who  became  man,  though  he  does  not 
say  how.    His  Sonship  was  latent,  recognized  with  difficulty  (Mark 

460 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE   HEBREWS         135 

IS  -39)  or  only  by  the  demons  (3:11;  5 : 7),  as  was  also  his  Messiahship 
(8:29).  Mark  considers  Jesus  also  as  the  heavenly  man  and  with  the 
idea  retains  no  doubt  rightly  the  phrase  "Son  of  Man,"  which  Paul 
dropped.  Mark  gives  a  vivid  picture  also,  as  he  intended  to  do,  of  the 
humanity  of  Jesus,  a  picture  clearer  and  stronger  than  that  of  any 
other  Gospel  (1:41;  2:8;  3:5;  4:38;  8:5;  10:14;  10:17,  40).  He 
gives  the  most  satisfactory  outline  of  the  main  events  and  developments 
of  his  ministry. 

The  question  as  to  how  much  in  this  Gospel  (as  in  the  others)  belongs 
to  Mark  himself  and  the  primitive  Christian  community  will  vary  from 
less  to  more  according  to  the  evidence  of  historical  criticism  and  each 
man's  tendency  or  inclination.  It  may  be  that  the  demands  of  a  high 
Christology  caused  the  Christian,  community  and  Mark  with  them  to 
push  back  into  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  much  more  than  has  yet  been 
recognized.  After  outlining  Mark's  testimony  to  the  amazing  dulness 
and  stupidity  of  the  disciples  Case  maintains  that  this  dulness  serves  as 
a  means  for  carrying  back  later  thought.^  But  whatever  the  extent  of 
this  pushing  back  of  thoughts  and  practices  of  a  later  time  into  the  life 
of  Jesus  may  prove  to  be,  it  need  not,  and  cannot,  as  Case  splendidly 
shows,  annul  the  historicity  of  Jesus,  diminish  the  uniqueness  and  power 
of  his  personal  religious  life  with  God,  invalidate  the  resurrection  appear- 
ances, or  destroy  the  experience  of  salvation  in  some  sense  through 
Jesus  which  is  after  all  the  fundamental  fact  in  and  impulse  toward  the 
development  of  any  Christology. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  Mark  has  a  high  Christology,  Pauline  in  its 
main  lines,  to  which  he  adds  a  vivid  picture  of  the  human  side  of  Jesus, 
of  his  prophetic  activity  as  preacher  of  repentance,  herald  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  and  worker  of  miracles  as  well  as  teacher — a  picture  which 
shows  indications  of  being  unconsciously  molded  and  changed  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  both  by  the  adoption  Christology  of  the  early 
Christians  and  by  the  higher  Christology  of  Paul. 

Matthew  and  Luke  naturally  manifest  a  still  greater  degree  of 
change  of  the  early  tradition,  of  the  life,  activity,  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 
Their  common  non-Markan  source  or  sources  represents  Jesus  consist- 

*  The  Historicity  of  Jesus,  191 2,  p.  226:  "In  all  this  Mark  is  clearly  recognizing 
that  Jesus  made  no  such  impression  upon  his  contemporaries  as  his  later  interpreters 
thought  he  ought  to  have  produced,  and  as  they  would  have  him  produce  on  the 
minds  of  believers  in  their  day.  But  by  making  the  blindness  of  Jesus'  associates 
responsible  for  this  failure,  the  early  theologians  could  still  think  of  him  as  displaying 
unique  power  commensurate  with  their  faith  in  him  as  the  heavenly  Lord,  and  at  the 
same  time  they  could  harmonize  the  history  with  their  Christology." 

461 


136  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

ently,  however,  as  the  great  prophetic  teacher,  rather  than  divine  healer 
and  miracle  worker.  As  this  source  (or  sources)  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  is  generally  considered  to  be  somewhat  earlier  than  Mark  and 
largely  free  from  the  tendency  to  miracle  and  Christology,  it  leads  many 
to  think  that  Mark  as  well  as  the  later  writers  have  very  materially 
altered  the  original  representation  of  Jesus.  It  must  be  remembered, 
however,  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  time  to  distinguish  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  between  the  deeds  and  the  words  of  a  teacher  (Acts  i :  i). 
The  need  for  the  teaching  was  naturally  felt  first  and  strongest. 

The  most  striking  addition  of  Matthew  and  Luke  to  christological 
doctrine  is  found  in  the  story  of  the  miraculous  conception  as  displayed 
in  their  infancy  narratives.  Unless  the  story  here  given  is  considered 
as  fact  in  some  way  hidden  from  Paul  and  Mark,  it  requires  considerable 
time  for  its  development  and  indicates  a  late  date,  say,  toward  the  end 
of  the  first  century  and  a  decisive  advance  upon  the  Christology  of  Paul 
and  Mark.  It  is  conceived  as  an  explanation  of  the  uniqueness  and 
greatness  of  Jesus  and  of  the  modus  operandi  of  his  Sonship.  It  is  a 
composite,  a  blend  in  all  probability  of  Old  Testament  ideas,  the 
adoption-Christology  of  the  primitive  community,  and  the  conceptions 
of  the  various  mystery-religions  with  added  Greek  elements.*  The 
thought  itself  is  probably  Greek,  but  the  prominence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  well  as  the  general  context  indicates  a  strong  Semitic  element.  In 
fact  it  is  probably  in  a  measure  a  further  pushing  back  of  the  idea  of 
adoption  as  it  is  found  in  the  Baptism  experience  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  plays  a  quite  similar  r61e.  The  Greek  element  appears  distinctly, 
however,  in  that  the  story  explains  the  Sonship  as  metaphysical,  that  is, 
essential.^  Paul  and  Mark  had  felt  no  need  of  such  an  explanation.  In 
fact,  such  an  explanation  seems  out  of  harmony  with  the  idea  of  pre- 
existence,  about  which  Matthew  and  Luke  say  nothing.  In  many  other 
respects  Matthew  tends  to  a  heightened  Christology  (Matt.  8:8,  i6; 
12:28;  21: 20). 3  With  Paul  he  emphasized  the  eschatological  element 
and  specifically  the  death  of  Christ  as  necessary  in  the  divine  plan 
(16:21,  23)  as  redemptive  (26:28)  and  ratifying  a  new  covenant  (20:28; 
26:28). 

'Granbery,  Outline  of  New  Testament  Christology,  p.  57  and  n.  i;  Petersen, 
Wunderhare  Geburt  des  Heilandes,  Kap.  3,  "  Die  ubematurliche  Geburt  Jesu  im  Lichte 
der  Religionsgeschichte." 

^'J.  Weiss,  Christus,  S.  81;  cf.  Inscription  at  Priene,  quoted  by  Pfleiderer  in 
Monist,  XrV,  5. 

3  Allen,  Commentary  on  Matthew,  pp.  xxxi-xxxiii;  cf.  also  his  summary  of  the 
Christology,  p.  Ixvi. 

462 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  137 

Luke  does  not  so  fully  reveal  his  personal  christological  standpoint. 
It  is  however  strongly  Pauline,  charged  with  the  universal  gentile  spirit, 
and  emphasizes  strongly  the  human  element  in  Jesus  in  addition  to  the 
Pauline  lines. 

But  the  synoptists  were  not  the  only  reactionaries  against  the 
Pauline  extreme  which  discounted  the  earthly  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 
The  great  majority  of  Christians,  even  the  personal  disciples  of  Jesus, 
were  not  so  original,  independent,  and  creative  as  Paul.  They  therefore 
fell  back  on  Jesus'  specific  deeds  and  words.  A  spiritual  bond,  like  a 
great  cable  reaching  into  the  unseen,  held  Paul  true  to  Jesus  in  the 
main,  though  not  in  detail,  in  spirit,  though  not  in  form.  Paul  felt  the 
fullest  freedom  in  beating  out  his  own  views  of  truth,  centering  them  all 
about  the  Incarnation  and  the  cross  of  Christ  as  the  great  redemptive 
triumph  for  the  world.  Very  largely  he  formed  his  own  molds  with 
material  gathered  from  every  quarter,  but  he  filled  them  with  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  It  will  be  found  that  essentially  Paul  represented 
and  developed  the  message  of  his  master  Jesus.' 

But  less  independent  and  original  spirits  could  not  have  broken  this 
new  way,  and  indeed  could  not  even  follow  Paul's  lead  without  greater 
support  from  Jesus  himself.  Hence  our  Synoptic  Gospels.  But  even 
where  the  writing  did  not  take  the  new  form  of  a  Gospel,  the  reaction 
toward  more  support  from  Jesus  himself  is  seen.  Two  such  writings  are 
the  Epistle  of  I  Peter  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  These  two 
writings  are  in  some  way  closely  related.^  They  probably  spring  from 
the  same  general  situation  and  atmosphere  and  express  an  unconscious 
reaction  against  the  mystical  depth  of  Paulinism  and  its  disregard  of  the 
experiences  of  the  earthly  Jesus.  They  both  make  much  of  the  experi- 
ence of  suffering;  they  are  both  rather  practical  than  profound  or 
mystical;  they  both  exhort  after  the  fashion  of  a  homily;  they  both 
emphasize  the  death  of  Christ  as  propitiatory  in  a  similar  way;  they 
make  much  of  hope,  of  the  future  glory  of  Christ  and  Christians,  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  prophets,  of  the  reproach  and  sufferings  of  the  pre- 
existent  Christ  (I  Pet.  i:ii;  cf.  Heb.  11:26).  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  however,  makes  larger  use  of  the  experiences  of  Jesus'  earthly 
life  than  does  I  Peter.  It  makes  an  astonishingly  close  approach  to  the 
modern  psychological  developmental  view  of  the  reflex  action  of  suffering 
upon  character,  both  for  Christ  (Heb.  5:7-10)  and  for  Christians  (12:7). 

'  A.  Meyer,  Jesus  or  Paul,  p.  106. 

'Holtzmann,  Handcommentar  zum  N.  T,,  III,  "Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer," 
Einleitung,  II,  3. 

463 


138  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Unlike  Paul,  Hebrews  deliberately  states  that  the  salvation  which  it 
proclaims  was  first  proclaimed  by  Jesus  when  on  earth  (2:3),  and  was 
delivered  by  faithful  witnesses  (2:3).  Paul  would  not  make  such 
connections.  Paul  claims  indeed  the  identity  of  inner  personality 
between  the  exalted  Christ  and  the  earthly  Jesus,  but  he  is  not  con- 
cerned to  make  such  detailed  connection.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
follows  the  same  main  christological  lines  as  Paul — ^pre-existence, 
incarnation,  redemptive  death,  resurrection,  and  exaltation.  He  has 
the  main  eschatological  lines  also,  though  with  less  emphasis  and  promi- 
nence, viz.,  parousia,  judgment,  transformation  of  the  world,  yet 
in  a  way  different  from  that  of  Paul  (Heb.  12:27,  28).  The  writer 
develops  the  idea  of  the  sacrifice  and  High-Priesthood  of  Jesus  in  detail 
as  Paul  does  not  do. 

b)  The  apocalyptic  movement. — ^Another  divergent  tendency  of  a  more 
radical  t)^e  may  be  noted  in  writings  belonging  to  this  same  period,  viz., 
ca,  90  A.D.  This  tendency  may  be  called  apocalyptic.^  Apocalyptic 
views  were  common  property  at  this  period.  Paul  shared  them  very 
strongly,  especially  at  the  beginning  of  his  Christian  career,  though  there 
is  evidence  of  a  loss  of  interest  and  emphasis  toward  the  end.  Jesus  the 
Messiah  had  suffered  death,  but  he  would  come  again  to  fulfil  those 
expectations  of  glory  and  triumph  which  they  had  in  their  shortsighted- 
ness expected  of  him  at  his  first  coming.  So  the  early  Christians 
reasoned.  Thus  apocalyptic  could  still  breathe  the  breath  of  life.  Its 
activity  was  increased  also  by  persecutions.  Now  Paul  did  not  paint 
the  glories  of  the  future  triumph  of  Christ  and  Christians  with  sufficient 
color  or  in  sufficient  detail.  He  was  too  moderate,  too  severely  ethical, 
perhaps,  and  mystical.  Hence  such  a  writing  as  the  Apocalypse  of  John, 
the  only  representative  of  its  type  in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
but  a  writing  which  probably  represents  the  views  of  a  fairly  large 
number  of  Christians  at  this  time.  Its  Christology  is  clearly  post- 
Pauline.  "  The  dignity,  glory,  and  authority  of  Christ  and  the  greatness 
of  his  redeeming  work  are  set  forth  in  exalted  terms  and  the  strongest 
imagery  is  employed  (1:5).  He  is  a  priest  (i :  13),  is  Lord  of  the  church 
(1:12-16),  is  pre-existent  and  eternal,  and  determines  who  shall  enter 
and  who  be  released  from  the  realms  of  the  dead  (1:8,  17,  18;  21:6; 
22 :  13),  is  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords  (17 :  14;  19: 16),  is  the  bright, 
the  morning  star  that  will  rise  upon  the  world  to  usher  in  the  consumma- 
tion (22:16) Given  titles  that  belong  to  God,  and  worshiped 

by  men  and  angels,  Christ  reigns  not  only  during  the  earthly  millennium, 

»  Granbery,  Outline  of  New  Testament  Christology,  pp.  87-91. 

464 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  HEBREWS         139 

but  sits  with  God  in  the  final  consummation."^  The  apocalyptic 
tendency  toward  external  glory  and  imagery  has  carried  the  writer 
even  beyond  the  Christology  of  Paul.  Christ  is  closely  associated  with 
God  (19:11-16;   21:22;   22:1,  3). 

c)  The  radical  movement. — But  the  climax  of  christological  develop- 
ment within  the  New  Testament  is  found  in  the  Johannine  writings, 
particularly  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle.  For  some  years 
the  Fourth  Gospel  has  been  closely  studied.  It  is  still  in  many  respects 
an  enigma  and  may  always  be.  But  certain  main  lines  in  connection 
with  it  are  standing  out  more  clearly  as  a  result  of  the  work.  From 
the  religio-historical  point  of  view,  if  not  from  the  literary  point  of 
view,  it  is  a  unit.  The  historical  element  in  it  is  quite  subsidiary, 
though  not  without  some  value  even  in  the  strictly  historical  sense; 
it  is  selected  and  used  for  the  purpose  of  a  religious  and  theological 
interpretation  of  Jesus.  The  Gospel  is  partly  apologetic  and  polemic.^ 
It  manifests  the  greatest  influence  by  and  the  closest  approach  to 
the  mystery-religions  so  prevalent  at  the  end  of  the  first  century 

A.D. 

In  fact,  as  Christianity  on  its  mission  to  the  gentiles  moved  out  into 
the  religious  and  philosophical  milieu  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world,  it 
found  itself  confronted  everywhere  with  conceptions  of  great  worth  and 
vitality — conceptions  of  human  need,  human  helplessness  and  sinfulness, 
conceptions  of  divine  helpfulness,  mercy,  and  salvation,  of  divine  Saviors, 
of  divine  revelations,  and  of  life,  light,  truth,  resurrection,  immortality, 
and  future  blessedness  through  association  and  union  of  God  and  man. 
These  were  abstract  conceptions,  to  be  sure,  and  therein  lay  their 
weakness  and  their  danger.  Gnosticism  is  the  term  applied  to  the  simi- 
total  of  these  conceptions.  But  strictly  speaking  these  are  the  concep- 
tions of  the  mystery-religions.  Gnosticism  is  the  term  to  describe 
them  after  they  have  passed  through  the  alembic  of  Christianity. 
Now  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  confronted  this  religious  and 
philosophical  thought-world  of  the  mystery-religions.  It  is  not  im- 
possible to  suppose  that  he  was  himself  a  convert  to  Christianity 
from  this  thought-world  of  the  mystery-religions.  In  any  case  he 
sympathizes  with  much  that  they  contain.  He  realizes  that  if  Chris- 
tianity is  to  hold  its  own  and  win  the  day  it  must  absorb  their  vital 
elements  and  express  itself  in  terms  of  their  conceptions.  He  is  perfectly 
confident  that  Christianity  is  the  supreme  religion,  and  he  sets  himself 
to  the  task  of  presenting  it  as  such. 

*  Granbery,  op.  cit.,  p.  91.  » E.  F.  Scott,  The  Fourth  Gospel',  chap.  iii. 

465 


140  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Only  a  brief  outline  of  his  christological  attitude  can  be  given  and 
comparison  drawn  between  him  and  other  New  Testament  writers. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  uses  the  titles  "Christ"  or  "Messiah"  (1:17;  1:20, 
25;  3:28;  10:24,  etc.),  "Son  of  Man"  (1:51;  3:13,  14;  6:27,  etc.), 
"King  of  Israel"  (1:49),  and  "Lord"  (1:23;  6:23;  11:2,  etc.);  but 
they  have  all  lost  their  primitive  Semitic  meaning  and  have  become 
more  or  less  technical  and  conventional.  The  term  "Lamb  of  God"  is 
important  for  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  it  indicates  the  writer's  firm  faith 
in  the  redemptive  sacrificial  death  of  Jesus.  A  still  more  striking  term 
however  is  "Logos,"  so  prominent  in  the  Prologue.  Though  the  term 
does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel,  the  doctrine  is  assumed  through- 
out. Jesus  was  the  Logos  in  the  beginning,  but  the  characteristic 
thought  of  the  writer  is  that  the  Logos  became  flesh  and  thus  revealed 
God  in  the  form  of  man.  In  this  respect  the  Fourth  Gospel  fully  de- 
veloped that  idea  which,  though  plainly  present,  was  nevertheless  some- 
what latent  in  Paul  and  Hebrews.  The  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
generally  credited  with  taking  the  term  from  Philo,  but  it  is  more  likely 
that  it  came  from  semi-popular  usage.  At  any  rate,  as  compared  with 
Philo's  usage,  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  less  abstract,  more  concrete 
and  personal,  full  of  a  sense  of  reality  and  saving  significance  through 
identification  with  the  historical  Jesus. 

But  the  most  common  and  the  most  significant  designation  of  Jesus 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  title  "Son"  or  "Son  of  God,"  denoting  the 
relation  of  Jesus  to  God  whom  he  frequently  calls  his  Father.  The  term 
is  surprisingly  rich  in  content.  As  Son  Jesus  is  pre-existent,  only- 
begotten,  one  with  God  the  Father  by  whom  he  was  sent  and  to  whom 
he  is  always  subject  (1:14;  3:35,  etc.).  He  enlightens  and  saves  the 
world  by  communicating  the  teaching  and  the  truth  which  he  has  received 
from  the  Father.  He  fulfils  Scripture,  bestows  the  Spirit  by  whom  he  is 
himself  filled,  displays  supernatural  knowledge,  gives  eternal  life  and 
future  blessedness  with  the  Father,  to  whom  he  returns.  Prayer  in  his 
name  is  effective  (14: 13  f.),  and  abiding  in  him  makes  the  Christian  life 
fruitful  (15:1,2).  In  short,  Jesus,  not  only  in  his  deeds  and  words,  but 
in  his  person,  not  only  in  the  future,  but  in  the  present,  is  the  revelation 
of  the  invisible  God  the  Father,  eternally  the  Son  of  God  and  the  way  to 
life  and  light  and  truth  and  God  which  is  salvation.  Accordingly  the 
Gospel  was  written  that  its  readers  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  they  might  have  life  in  his  name 
(John  20:21). 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Johannine  Christology  presents 

466 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS         141 

formally  a  fusing  of  the  Christology  of  Paul,  which  emphasizes  the 
eternal  and  divine  in  Christ  at  the  expense  of  the  historical  and  earthly, 
with  the  reactionary  Christology  of  such  writings  as  Hebrews  and  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  The  gnostic  systems  of  Paul's  day  and  later  had 
pushed  the  higher  side,  the  divine  side  of  the  Pauline  Christology  to 
violent  extremes  issuing  in  Docetism.  The  Gnostics  emphasized  the 
pre-existent,  the  divine,  at  the  expense  of,  even  with  the  annihilation  of, 
the  human  element.  Such  writings  as  Hebrews  and  the  synoptists 
reacted  and  added  the  human  by  emphasizing  the  historical  life  of  Jesus 
— his  human  nature.  The  Fourth  Gospel  aims  to  meet  the  violent 
extremes  of  Gnosticism,  such  as  Docetism,  but  has  itself  such  deep  sym- 
pathy with  and  regard  for  the  vital  truths  in  Gnosticism  that  it  carries 
the  Pauline  emphasis  on  the  divine  to  quite  a  new  extreme,  viz.,  the 
eternal  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  as  Logos  and  Son.  Not  merely  in  his 
Incarnation  and  Death  did  Jesus  reveal  God  and  bring  salvation.  Jesus 
revealed  God  in  his  life  on  earth,  his  daily  life.  Those  who  could  not  see 
the  divine  glory  even  in  the  earthly  Jesus  were  blinded  (14:22)  by 
ignorance  and  evil.  They  were  of  the  world.  But  Jesus  on  earth 
declared  God  (1:18),  though  his  future  glory  would  be  enhanced.  His 
life  was  a  constant  revelation  of  God.  Hence  no  need  of  a  transfigura- 
tion as  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  The  synoptic  writers  did  not  advance 
to  the  idea  that  Jesus  was  the  eternal  revelation  and  declaration  of  the 
glory  and  character  of  God.  They  with  Paul  thought  of  the  "  days  of  his 
flesh"  as  a  period  of  humiliation,  sacrifice,  and  suffering  only.  Hebrews 
advances  somewhat  on  the  Pauline  idea  in  making  more  of  the  earthly 
Jesus  like  the  synoptists  and  in  making  Jesus'  place  in  relation  to  God 
apparently  permanent.  Jesus  in  Hebrews  is  the  constant  vicegerent  of 
Cjod.  Paul,  Hebrews,  and  the  synoptists  all  reveal  closer  dependence 
than  the  Fourth  Gospel  on  the  christological  ideas  of  the  primitive 
Christian  community  in  that  they  all  show  traces  in  lessening  degree  of 
the  adoptive  idea  of  Sonship.  The  Fourth  Gospel  has  broken  with  the 
adoptive  idea  altogether.  The  idea  of  Sonship  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
approaches  that  of  the  mystery-religions,  in  which  Sonship  consists  in 
wisdom  and  perfect  knowledge  of  the  divine.  The  Fourth  Gospel  does 
not  have  the  idea  of  the  miraculous  conception  as  Matthew  and  Luke, 
nor  the  theocratic  or  adoptive  idea  of  the  primitive  community.  In  a 
very  true  and  deep  sense  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  carried  to  its  climax 
what  appears  to  have  been  Jesus'  own  sense  of  Sonship  (Matt.  11:27). 
Like  Jesus,  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  discounted  the  "Son  of  David" 
idea  in  connection  with  the  Messiahship.    It  has  also  discounted  the 

467 


142  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

eschatological  element.  The  parousia  has  been  largely  spiritualized 
into  the  abiding  presence  of  Christ  through  the  presence  of  the  Spirit 
or  Comforter  whom  he  will  send.  The  future  judgment  and  resurrection 
have  become  spiritualized  and  made  present  experiences.  In  this 
reduction  of  the  eschatological  element  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  also  at  one 
with  Jesus.  The  writer  has  developed,  enlarged,  made  objective  and 
absolute  the  feeling  which  Jesus  himself  had,  viz.,  that  the  Son  alone  knew 
the  Father  and  that  only  the  Son  could  therefore  adequately  reveal 
the  Father  to  men.  And  moreover  he  has  sincerely  tried  to  do  this 
without  destroying  the  historical  Jesus,  indeed  by  using  the  historical 
Jesus  and  stoutly  maintaining  his  humanity.  The  modern  critic  can 
see  his  failures;  he  feels  that  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  warped 
the  historical  and  human  in  Jesus.  But  the  mistakes  of  the  writer  need 
not  and  do  not  invalidate  his  fundamental  thesis  that,  religiously 
speaking,  Jesus  is  the  final  revelation  of  God  because  he  actually  leads 
men  to  God.  Even  the  modern  critic,  indeed  especially  the  modern 
critic,  is  beginning  to  see  that  in  the  historical  Jesus  there  is  the  satisfying 
and  efficient  revelation  of  God.  In  this  he  is  substantiating  the  main 
truth  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


468 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

It  has  been  the  custom  with  scholars  to  class  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  with  those  epistles  which,  though  bearing  marks  of  strong 
Pauline  influence,  cannot  with  sufficient  certainty  be  assigned  to  the 
great  apostle  himself.^  They  have^taken  form  under  the  shadow  of  the 
figure  of  Paul  and  are  called  "deutero-Pauline." 

In  the  course  of  this  study  numerous  instances  of  contact  with 
Pauline  thought  have  appeared.  But  in  every  case  the  similarity  has 
been  somewhat  superficial.  The  point  of  view  and  the  method  of 
presentation  have  been  quite  different.  It  would  be  exaggerating  to 
say  that  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  was  not  influenced  by  Paul  and  his 
letters.  But  it  is  clear  that  this  influence  has  been  greatly  exaggerated. 
Holtzmaim,  von  Soden,  and  Bruckner  have  all  emphasized  dependence 
upon  Paul,  and  their  cases  are  strong  for  some  measure  of  dependence. 
But  in  many  of  the  cases  which  they  cite  the  similarity  is  to  be  assigned 
to  common  sources  rather  than  to  direct  contact.  The  tradition  and 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Christian  church  were  the  common  source  of 
much  that  is  similar  in  Paul  and  the  writer  of  Hebrews.  In  other  cases 
of  contact  the  similarity  is  eclipsed  by  the  dissimilarity.  Our  author  is 
original  and  characteristic  in  his  presentation  of  thoughts  and  doctrine 
that  are  also  Pauline. 

The  writer  of  this  Epistle  had  not  the  religious  genius  of  Paul.  He 
was  intense,  but  not  with  the  intensity  and  abandon  that  characterized 
Paul.  He  was  intellectual  and  religious,  though  not  profound  and 
mystical.  But  he  should  not  be  put  in  the  shadow  of  the  great  apostle, 
for  he  was  not  dominated  by  him.  He  deserves  to  stand  alone  as  pre- 
senting a  distinctive  view  of  Christian  experience  and  thought. 

And  as  his  general  view  of  Christian  truth  is  distinctive,  even  more 
is  his  Christology  distinctive.  It  is  not  predominantly  Pauline.  Paulin- 
ism  is  one  of  the  strands  in  it,  but  it  is  subordinate.  The  Christology  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  strictly  a  unity.  It  is  a  composite 
formed  amid  the  atmosphere  of  the  mystery-religions  by  the  union  of  the 
views  of  the  primitive  Christian  church  with  the  writer's  Alexandrian 
views  of  the  Logos,  the  distinctively  Pauline  view  forming  a  third  but 
subordinate  strand.    In  many  respects  the  distinctively  Pauline  view 

^Ephesians,  I  and  II  Timothy,  and  Titus.     Cf.  Moffatt,  Introdmtion  to  the 
Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  Chap.  iii. 
469]  143 


144  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

itself  approached  closely  to  the  Alexandrian  view  of  the  Logos  in  sub- 
stance though  not  in  form.  This  has  helped  to  give  color  to  the  view 
that  Hebrews  is  "deutero-Pauline."  But  the  proper  way  to  view  the 
movement  is  not  to  think  of  the  writer  of  Hebrews  as  approaching  the 
Logos  doctrine  by  combining  the  primitive  Christian  and  distinctively 
Pauline  views,  but  rather  to  think  of  him  as  approaching  the  Pauline 
view  by  combining  the  primitive  Christian  view  with  the  Alexandrian 
Logos  doctrine.  This  attempt  to  combine  the  two  views  produces  in 
Hebrews  what  Harnack  calls  the  "pneumatic  Christology"^  as  over 
against  its  chief  rival  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  "adoption  Christology."* 
Harnack  fails  to  see  what  an  important  part  the  adoption  Christology 
plays  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

In  the  primitive  Christian  view,  which  the  writer  of  Hebrews  sought 
to  combine  with  the  Alexandrian,  there  were  the  two  rival  Christologies, 
the  adoption  and  the  pneumatic.^  It  is  difficult  to  say  how  far  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  used  the  primitive  Christian  pneumatic  view,  for  the 
Alexandrian  thought  when  applied  to  a  historic  person  would  produce 
something  very  similar  to  the  pneumatic  view.  It  is  likely  that  the 
writer  belonged  to  a  circle  of  Christians  who  held  both  the  adoption 
and  the  pneumatic  views,  though  strictly  speaking  they  are  mutually 
exclusive.  Harnack  says  that  the  two  "came  very  near  each  other 
when  the  Spirit  of  God  implanted  in  the  man  Jesus  was  conceived 
as  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God."^  The  adoption  view  was  especially 
strong  at  Rome,^  and  this  may  be  another  link  uniting  our  author 
with  the  Roman  church. 

It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  in  addition  to  the  Alexandrian  and  pneu- 
matic views,  which  cannot  be  clearly  distinguished,  our  author  had 
accepted  the  adoption  Christology  of  the  primitive  church  and  used  the 
language  of  this  view.  Moreover,  his  emphasis  on  the  humanity  of 
Jesus,  on  the  qualities  of  character  which  to  the  Oriental  more  than  to 
the  Occidental  indicated  a  noble  God-fearing  man,  on  the  development 
of  his  character  through  suffering,  on  his  exaltation  of  character — all 

^  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  I,  pp.  190  f.,  192,  n.  i. 
^Ihid.,  I,  p.  191,  n.  I. 

3  Ihid.,  I,  chap,  iii,  sec.  6. 

4  IhU.,  I,  p.  193. 

5  Eusebius,  H.E.,  V,  28,  3;  cf.  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  I,  p.  191,  n.  i:  "The  representa- 
tives of  this  [adoption]  Christology,  who  in  the  third  century  were  declared  to  be 
heretics,  expressly  maintained  that  it  was  at  one  time  the  ruling  Christology  at  Rome 
and  had  been  handed  down  by  the  apostles." 

470 


THE   CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS  145 

these  and  many  other  elements  are  in  essential  harmony  with  the  adop- 
tion view.  In  this  respect  Hebrews  is  with  the  synoptists  rather  than 
with  Paul. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  writer  as  distinctly  holds  the  "pneumatic" 
view  since  he  holds  that  Jesus  was  a  pre-existent  spirit-being,  identifying 
him  with  the  Logos  of  Philo,  though  he  does  not  use  the  term.  The 
truth  is  that  he  has  failed  to  fuse  the  two  views.  He  speaks  of  an 
inception  of  Sonship,  yet  leaves  the  impression  that  the  Son  was  eternal. 
More  than  Paul  he  subordinates  Jesus  to  God,  comparing  him  as  a 
spirit-being  to  the  angels.  Yet  he  applies  to  him  the  term  ^eos,  though 
only  indirectly,  and  he  uses  language  so  exalted  (1:3)  as  to  indicate 
that  he  probably  conceived  of  Christ  as  an  eternal  spirit-being  in  some 
unique  relation  to  God  as  compared  with  other  spirit-beings,  a  relation 
however  which  he  does  not  define. 


m 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bleek,  Commentar  uber  den  Hebrder-Brief.     1828-40. 

Delitzsch,  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     1857. 

RiEHM,  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebrderbriefs.     1867. 

Davidson,  Hebrews.    1882. 

Keil,  Commentar  uber  den  Hebrder-Brief.    1885. 

VON  SoDEN,  "Hebraerbrief  "  [Handcommentar  zum  N.T.].     1892. 

Menegoz,  La  tHologie  de  Vepttre  aux  Eebreux.    1894. 

Harnack,  History  of  Dogma.     1894. 

Bruce,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.    1899. 

MiLLiGAN,  The  Theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     1899. 

Weiss,  B.,  "Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer"  [Meyer  Kommentar  zum  N.T.].    1902. 

Peake,  Hebrews.     1904. 

Wernle,  Die  Anfdnge  unserer  Religion.    1904. 

Westcott,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.    1906. 

JuLiCHER,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1906. 

Scott,  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testament.    1907. 

Hollmann,  "Hebraerbrief  "  [Die  Schriften  des  N.T.].    1907. 

BousSET,  Hauptprobleme  der  Gnosis.     1907. 

GooDSPEED,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     1908. 

Zahn,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    1909. 

Sanday,  ChristologieSj  Ancient  and  Modern.     19 10. 

Weiss,  B.,  Der  Hebrderbrief  in  zeitgeschichtlicher  Beleuchtung.    1910. 

Weiss,  J.,  Christ,  the  Beginnings  of  Dogma.    1911. 

HoLTZMANN,  H.,  N eutestameutUche  Theologie.    1911. 

Peine,  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.     191 1. 

MoFFATT,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament.     1911. 

Pfleiderer,  Die  Vorbereitung  des  Christentums  in  der  griechischen  Philosophie. 

1912. 
Clemen,  Primitive  Christianity  and  Its  N on- Jewish  Sources.    191 2. 
RiGGENBACH,  "Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer"  [Zahn  Kommentar  zum  N.T.], 

1913. 
Weinel,  Biblische  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.    1913. 
Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery-Religions.    1913. 
Nairne,  The  Epistle  of  Priesthood.    1914. 


472  [146 


INDEX  TO  PASSAGES 

HEB.                                                   PAGE  HEB.                                                   PAGE  HEB.                                                   PAGE 

i:'-4 55  ^-,69.  4:^4 40.      9:'^^- 46,47- 

i:* 49»  SO,  9Sf.  4:'5 44.      9:14 13. 

i:3 loi,  102.  s:5 29,      9:1s 47. 

i:S...29,  30,  84!.,  89,  120.  30,64,  86,89,91,  120.      9:16 47. 

i:S-i4 37.  s:7  f. 54.      io:i-4 45  f. 

1:6 68  f.  s:7-io 22,  28.      io:S 23,  102. 

i:8« 53'  5:8 92.      io:7 54,55. 

1:8 91.  5'-9 44-      io:i3 53. 

i:io 76.  5:1* 13.      io:«9 93  f. 

i:io-i2 50.  5:14 48.      io:32 no. 

1:13* 99.  6:J^ 13.      ii:" III. 

2:3 76  f.  6:4-8 52.      II :3 53. 

2:4 45.  6:6 93  f.      ii:«3f. 38. 

2 :  10. , 27.  6:7-^ 53.      1 1 :  »6 64  f. 

2:" 32  f.  7:1-25 41  f.      11:39,40 35. 

2:"^- 113.  7:3 51,  94f.      12:2 25,  26. 

2:16 51.  7:2s 47,49.      12:^0 46. 

3:' 66  f.  7:26 27,  43.      12:23 69. 

3:^"^ 38,39-  7:*^ 92  f.      13:^ 63. 

3'^^- 114.  8:2 78.      13:0 14. 

3:6 92.  8:4 12.      13: '3 64  f. 

3:" 13-  8:13 12.      13:20 77. 

4:2 no.  9:11 106. 


147)  473 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

.'•.cU^i!-.  LD 

'SNo/sfty 

^'OV  12  1959 

SAN  DIEGO 
ITERLIBRARY  LOAh 

1 

1 

1 

NOV  2  5  1969 

• 

f.  -^^t^oV^o^R 

IN  STACKS 

NOV  111959 

JK    LD  21-100iil-9,'48iB399sl 

\ 
6)476 

